I'm not concerned with people who think a God or Gods talk(s) to them. Nor am I concerned with people that believe that Jesus is there to save them when everything goes wrong. You guys, provided you're in that camp, are unsaveable. History will look upon you in much the same way it looks upon the Romans. That is: how can any rational person believe that shit?

No, I'm concerned with the great number of self-proclaimed agnostics I've noticed. I'm assuming that this is a side-effect of reform liberalism, but I still think it needs to be addressed. You're like a bunch of myopic progressives--you want to entertain the idea of a world without a God or Gods, but you're too entrenched in today's society to admit it.

So, here's my thesis: If you believe in the validity of logic and its correlation to the real world (and you better; otherwise, you wouldn't be able to use Totse), you absolutely cannot even entertain the idea of a supernatural being or beings. Why? Because the existence of a supernatural being presupposes something outside of the law of cause and effect. And if anything--absolutely anything--lies beyond cause and effect, then cause and effect itself ceases to be a reliable observation.

For instance: suppose you are turning a gear, which is in turn attached to the teeth of another gear. Now obviously, the law of cause and effect will say that such-and-such gear will turn the such-and-such teeth of such-and-such gear when you apply kinetic energy to either of them, provided that they are in a logical configuration. However, let's consider this: something is outside of the law of cause and effect. Even better, let's consider the popular idea that there's an omnipotent, omnipresent intelligence that lies beyond cause and effect, able to change it at will. If this were the case, then the action and reaction of those gears is no longer predictable. And not only those gears; nothing can be determined if anything exists outside of cause and effect. If something exists outside of cause and effect, then cause and effect becomes unreliable; which means, when you boil it down to ones and zeros, that logic itself is entirely unreliable.

Which means that you don't have machines. You don't have computers. You don't have life.

Of course, I'm sure that someone can come in and say: "What if that which lies beyond cause and effect decides not to interrupt the process?" That's all fine and dandy, except that every religion to date depends upon something outside of cause and effect in order for that religion to make any sense whatsoever. The Israelites enslaved by the Egyptians? It wasn't cause and effect. It was God's Mandate, from without the material world.

Not only that tiny little fact, however, shows the fault in the "outside of cause and effect" argument. In order to justify such a statement, one must assume supreme knowledge of said supernatural being or beings. In essence, one must assume him/herself to be the supernatural being. Yet this, however much one might wish it into being, cannot possibly be the case. We ourselves are entirely bound by cause and effect in the material world, and if such a supernatural land of fairies and gremlins existed, we would never be able to comprehend it. We are bound to the world in which we exist, and that world is very plainly a law of cause and effect. Even if one could presume to know the nature of supernatural beings, he or she now has the burden of proof--for which there is none, nor will there ever be.

In addition, some agnostics may argue: "But Joe! Just because we can't see it doesn't mean that it isn't there!" And my response: of course it doesn't mean that, but it does little to change my argument. My argument is that the validity of logic's entirety depends upon cause and effect, and anything beyond cause and effect introduces a variable that can't be predicted or factored into any cohesive argument. I could easily say that some people will be able to read this post, unless ghosts stop them from doing so! Such is the fault inherent in the agnostic argument: by introducing variables outside of logic, the process of logic itself becomes fruitless.

And, once again, I'm not interested in you 'Goddies' out there. I'm sure you're convinced that God exists because you feel a tingle in your spine whenever you go to church, which has an average temperature of 60 degrees. You guys just keep thinking that you're going to be saved, and go on trying to save people like me. I, on the other hand, would rather address real issues and solve real problems.

This post is for the agnostics of the world. And, in essence, my point is: your mind can be so open that your brain will fall out. If you claim to adhere to logic, then you simply cannot entertain the idea of the supernatural. You defeat the process in the process.

[This message has been edited by Toothlessjoe (edited 11-13-2006).]

Interesting article, but what will you do when the Agnostics protest this idea with their "Just say maybe to god" signs?

Joking aside I don't think you should believe things without proof, but some Agnostics are Agnostic because they are indifferent to religion in general.

While I agree with the points you made in your post, I think the title of the post may be a bit presumptuous. "God, and why you should wholly disbelieve" is a title you backed up with a logical argument, but I think the biggest assumtion you made is that agnostics are operating in a logical mindset...which isn't necessarily the case.

In fact, it seems that this is never the case. Though agnostics may think that they use logic to arrive at their conclusions, (i.e. it may be seemingly illogical to dismiss a phenomenon without evidence that gives 'proof' to its non-existance) they step out of the natural world when they acknowledge the possibility of the existance of a supernatural diety(s), and therefore out of the logical realm that governs it. Agnostics may claim to have the logical 'high-ground', but upon closer inspection, they don't seem to be as logical in their reasoning as they think.

But then again, I'm sure there are agnostics who make no claims to be completely logical.

quote:Originally posted by Toothlessjoe:



So, here's my thesis: If you believe in the validity of logic and its correlation to the real world (and you better; otherwise, you wouldn't be able to use Totse), you absolutely cannot even entertain the idea of a supernatural being or beings. Why? Because the existence of a supernatural being presupposes something outside of the law of cause and effect. And if anything--absolutely anything--lies beyond cause and effect, then cause and effect itself ceases to be a reliable observation.





It seems you are presupposing that any god that may exist is a non-deist god, one that interferes with the universe. I am an agnostic, but I don't accept that a non-deist god may exist, but rather that a deist god may possibly exist. A god that was the first cause may have existed. If there is nothing outside of this system to have put the system into motion, that an effect simply came into existence with no cause, seems illogical to me. As a last note, speaking in such a way that "cause and effect" exists is simply tautological, it is at best something we must perceive if anything is to make logical sense.



[This message has been edited by KikoSanchez (edited 11-13-2006).]

Hmm, perhaps I was hoping too much with this.

quote:Originally posted by KikoSanchez:

It seems you are presupposing that any god that may exist is a non-deist god, one that interferes with the universe. I am an atheist, but I don't accept that a non-deist god may exist, but rather that a deist god may possibly exist. A god that was the first cause may have existed. If there is nothing outside of this system to have put the system into motion, that an effect simply came into existence with no cause, seems illogical to me. As a last note, speaking in such a way that "cause and effect" exists is simply tautological, it is at best something we must perceive if anything is to make logical sense.

Why do you think that something came into existance without a natural cause? Just because we can't currently explain something, doesn't mean we have to look to the supernatural for an explanation. It's called a "god in the gaps" argument. Invoking the supernatural for the cause of unexplained phenomena was commonplace before science came about. What held the sun in the sky? God. What makes rain fall? God. Why do plagues happen? God is pissed. Etc., etc., ad nauseum. We now have natural explanations for all these things thanks to science. Why keep reaching to something outside of the natural world for what we currently don't know (especially as an atheist)? THAT seems illogical to me. I think it's only a matter of time before our biggest questions are answered by science and logic.

Yes. I am tired of these pseudo-intellectual bullshitters claiming that "atheism takes just as much faith as Christianity" or that "agnosticism is the only logical choice." To use a popular example, I disbelieve in God like I disbelieve in Santa Claus. I acknowledge that nothing can be completely proven, but if I want to accept as axiomatic things like logic and reason, then I can't admit the possibility of a God that exists outside of that logic.

WOW, I had a good 2-3 paragraphs written, moved my cursor down to reply and accidentally hit clear fields. Guess that's what I get for laying down on my bed while replying.

What I basically said was this:

I halfheartedly agree with what you are saying and will think it over for awhile longer.

Still, it seems illogical to believe that a closed system can be created ex nihilo, without any first cause from outside the system. This appears to conflict with causality itself, if an effect can simply come about without a cause.

If it doesn't take faith to disbelief god, does it not atleast take some faith to believe that a system is its own cause?

Wish I hadn't cleared the first version, it made more sense.

quote:Originally posted by KikoSanchez:



Still, it seems illogical to believe that a closed system can be created ex nihilo, without any first cause from outside the system. This appears to conflict with causality itself, if an effect can simply come about without a cause.

If it doesn't take faith to disbelief god, does it not atleast take some faith to believe that a system is its own cause?



You'll probably find this interesting:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astronomy/bigbang.html#firstlaw

I don't take up any beef with the big bang theory whatsoever, but rather how all of the energy and matter that was there beforehand came into existence. I simply can't wrap my mind around all that exists simply popped into existence from nothing. And maybe god filling this void is just as illogical to believe, but this is why I am an agnostic. I can't wholly agree with either the consequences that come along with theism, nor atheism.

Your belief is as radical as a Christian's.

quote:Originally posted by KikoSanchez:

I don't take up any beef with the big bang theory whatsoever, but rather how all of the energy and matter that was there beforehand came into existence. I simply can't wrap my mind around all that exists simply popped into existence from nothing. And maybe god filling this void is just as illogical to believe, but this is why I am an agnostic. I can't wholly agree with either the consequences that come along with theism, nor atheism.

Wait, so you cant wrap your mind around how existence came to be without the influence of some higher power but you can see how some divine presence which somehow came to be from nothing created the universe (if that makes any since at all)?? I dont understand your logic. Why add an extra variable into an equation that, as it is, cant be solved yet?

quote:Originally posted by KikoSanchez:

WOW, I had a good 2-3 paragraphs written, moved my cursor down to reply and accidentally hit clear fields. Guess that's what I get for laying down on my bed while replying.

What I basically said was this:

I halfheartedly agree with what you are saying and will think it over for awhile longer.

Still, it seems illogical to believe that a closed system can be created ex nihilo, without any first cause from outside the system. This appears to conflict with causality itself, if an effect can simply come about without a cause.

If it doesn't take faith to disbelief god, does it not atleast take some faith to believe that a system is its own cause?

Wish I hadn't cleared the first version, it made more sense.

1.) Next time you do that, press cntrl + z.

2.) You might find this interesting, as well. (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mark_vuletic/vacuum.html)

quote:Originally posted by The_Big_Beef:

Wait, so you cant wrap your mind around how existence came to be without the influence of some higher power but you can see how some divine presence which somehow came to be from nothing created the universe (if that makes any since at all)?? I dont understand your logic. Why add an extra variable into an equation that, as it is, cant be solved yet?

Well yes, is it not more logical to believe that a system is created by something outside of the system than created within itself(whatever the hell that would even look like or how that could be possible)?

quote:Originally posted by KikoSanchez:

Well yes, is it not more logical to believe that a system is created by something outside of the system than created within itself(whatever the hell that would even look like or how that could be possible)?



Then what was God inside and what made the thing God was inside?

Way to avoid my question by changing the subject.

I can't speak of any other system than the one I know of, as I am logically constrained to only understand systems under how I understand them, which is a construct of this system. Just as a 2d character(if there could be such a thing) could not possibly understand what rules rule the 3d system.

[This message has been edited by KikoSanchez (edited 11-14-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by KikoSanchez:



I can't speak of any other system than the one I know of, as I am logically constrained to only understand systems under how I understand them,

Unless you have a learning disability, that's not true. Read the links that were posted.

quote:

2.)You might find this interesting, as well. (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mark_vuletic/vacuum.html)

Holy balls, that's pretty bitchin'!

quote:Originally posted by KikoSanchez:

I can't speak of any other system than the one I know of, as I am logically constrained to only understand systems under how I understand them, which is a construct of this system. Just as a 2d character(if there could be such a thing) could not possibly understand what rules rule the 3d system.



That doesn't change anything. You're just putting the part you can't understand one step back. "Who created the universe?" "God." "Who created God?" "Well, we can't say!" Wow, big difference! That's way more logical! http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

Edit: @ PB Soup: http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif) I thought it was pretty neat too. Like the article says, few people seem to be aware of that material. http://www.totse.com/bbs/eek.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/eek.gif)

[This message has been edited by Twisted_Ferret (edited 11-14-2006).]

I've known of sub-atomic and quantum mechanics principles for quite some time, but they are highly theoretical and many say that their happenings only seem random or by chance only because we do not completely understand it completely yet.

Still no one has answered my criticism of atheism supporting a system which creates itself with no first cause.

quote:Originally posted by Twisted_Ferret:



That doesn't change anything. You're just putting the part you can't understand one step back. "Who created the universe?" "God." "Who created God?" "Well, we can't say!" Wow, big difference! That's way more logical! http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)



I am trying to understand the creation of our system by something that makes sense to me logically. Until someone can explain how a system can create itself in a universe that is controlled by causality, I'm not sure if I can change my mind. It may be that the system that is ruled by causality has been created by a system which is not ruled by causality.

quote:Originally posted by KikoSanchez:

I am trying to understand the creation of our system by something that makes sense to me logically.

If you're looking for the rules of physics to follow the rules of common sense, it ain't gonna happen. Physics has shown that the chair I'm sitting in is made up of atoms that are mostly empty space between the nucleus and the planetary electrons. Common sense tells me that I should fall through such a chair. One who is told such a thing can either conclude that some truths of science are counter intuitive, or he can say, "God keeps the chair together".

If something in the universe around you becomes hard to comprehend, you can choose to believe that what's part of the natural world is sometimes beyond your grasp, or you can bring the supernatural into the equation and throw your hands up in the air and proclaim, "God did it". It's up to you.

quote:Originally posted by Martini:



If something in the universe around you becomes hard to comprehend, you can choose to believe that what's part of the natural world is sometimes beyond your grasp, or you can bring the supernatural into the equation and throw your hands up in the air and proclaim, "God did it". It's up to you.

Exactly why I stick to agnosticism, I simply accept human ignorance. I don't claim that our system created itself, within itself, nor "god dit it", to me the cosmological consequences of either view do not seem completely logical.

Does an atheist claim that our system created itself or say that such knowledge is beyond his/her grasp?

quote:Does an atheist claim that our system created itself or say that such knowledge is beyond his/her grasp?

Depends on the atheist.

I personally see no importance in how we got here. The fact is that we are here and might as well make the most of it while we can.

quote:Originally posted by KikoSanchez:

Exactly why I stick to agnosticism, I simply accept human ignorance. I don't claim that our system created itself, within itself, nor "god did it", to me the cosmological consequences of either view do not seem completely logical.

I'm not sure what your definition of agnosticism is, but based on some of your statements, it doesn't seem to be the common definition of one who believes that it is impossible to know whether gods exist. Many agnostics are atheists.

An atheist doesn't have to come to a conclusion on the Big Bang. As long as there is not sufficient evidence for him to believe that gods exist, he's an atheist.

quote:Originally posted by KikoSanchez:

Does an atheist claim that our system created itself or say that such knowledge is beyond his/her grasp?

I don't think "created itself" would be the correct terminology. What an atheist claims or says depends on the atheist. All that one necessarily has in common with another is that they both lack a belief in gods.

I'm an agnostic, actually I don't know what I am, or believe in, which is kind of the way I like it http://www.totse.com/bbs/tongue.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/tongue.gif)

I'm not an atheist, party because I feel you're wrong http://www.totse.com/bbs/tongue.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/tongue.gif)

Same with any religious group.

Why not combine the...abilities each group have developed, and then improve?

The fact that many people are agnostic is because they DONT think like you, and many people just can't rule out the possibility of "higher" meaning, when that...feeling of pure energy flows within you?

Maybe God doesn't "talk" to you, i've never felt any kind of divine presence in my life, and a few years ago not only was I against religion, I thought the idea of thinking outside reletavist principals was flawed, and that there was no chance in any of the "spiritual" theories of reality having any basis in fact.

I guess a lot has changed, and I can't really see myself reverting back to an Atheist, I just can't accept this "lolz we know teh science, we know religious people are retarded, we've never 'heard' from god, hell, we must be right, all those millions of human beings who came before us were all ignorant, deluded fucks, without our superior western testing methods and understanding of the universe".

"God" is ingrained into conscious thought in some ways, religion is CLEARLY the product that suits this "gap in the market".

Remove religion, remove the fact you "know" God doesn't exist, remove that confidence you have in everything you see and believe.

And then pry those eyes open...even wider.

If staunch atheism is all you get, then that's fair enough, it's your life...I just don't see the logic behind it, it doesn't fit with the feelings one can experience.

And I don't think a lot of agnostics are "desperate" for the scientific-hard-materialist approach to be wrong, they just...can't quite embrace it, just as they can't embrace fervant spiritual/religious belief http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

quote:Originally posted by Mellow_Fellow:

Why not combine the...abilities each group have developed, and then improve?

I don't believe in God because I haven't found a reason to, e.g., evidence. Should I believe a little, simply because other people do? Is that improving upon my ideas? I don't think so.

quote:Originally posted by Mellow_Fellow:

The fact that many people are agnostic is because they DONT think like you,

Incorrect. I now many who are agnostic and atheist (including myself).

quote:Originally posted by Mellow_Fellow:

and many people just can't rule out the possibility of "higher" meaning, when that...feeling of pure energy flows within you?

Why are you assuming that anyone in this thread has ruled out the possibility of something more?





quote:Originally posted by Mellow_Fellow:

Remove religion, remove the fact you "know" God doesn't exist, remove that confidence you have in everything you see and believe.

Who here has claimed that they "know" God doesn't exist?





[This message has been edited by Martini (edited 11-16-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by KikoSanchez:

I've known of sub-atomic and quantum mechanics principles for quite some time, but they are highly theoretical and many say that their happenings only seem random or by chance only because we do not completely understand it completely yet.

You're right, it may be wrong. Therefore we should rule it out completely and support instead some bullshit about the supernatural. http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

I think you're misinterpreting my responses. I am simply putting some 'faith' into science that they will make sense out of the seemingly nonsensical sub-atomic mechanics, first and foremost. I believe, above everything else, that we live in a universe ruled by atleast one thing - causality. If causality goes out the window with quantum mechanics, then it may mean we have to give up lower-level causality as being sensical to any degree. How do all other pragmatic sciences even exist in this universe? They don't, and we give up logical postivism altogether I guess.

I'm not saying you fill in the unknown with God, but simply fill in the unknown with something that atleast seems logical to you. If you read my earlier posts about a system creating itself, I am not necessarily pointing towards some intelligent being god, but I cannot believe a "system-inertia-et-system" either.

Considering the possibility of inconsistent cause and effect:



Religion A, B and C believes God is a supernatural force unseen.

All three believe that God is all powerful

A - believes in eternal life

B - reward in heaven

C - reincarnation; moving spirit/soul

e.g. – Our connection to this supernatural God

If God is the unseen creator of all then the gears paragraph can be applied to life -

Toothlessjoe –

For instance: suppose you are turning a gear, which is in turn attached to the teeth of another gear. Now obviously, the law of cause and effect will say that such-and-such gear will turn the such-and-such teeth of such-and-such gear when you apply kinetic energy to either of them, provided that they are in a logical configuration. However, let's consider this: something is outside of the law of cause and effect. Even better, let's consider the popular idea that there's an omnipotent, omnipresent intelligence that lies beyond cause and effect, able to change it at will. If this were the case, then the action and reaction of those gears is no longer predictable. And not only those gears; nothing can be determined if anything exists outside of cause and effect. If something exists outside of cause and effect, then cause and effect becomes unreliable; which means, when you boil it down to ones and zeros, that logic itself is entirely unreliable. http://www.totse.com/bbs/tongue.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/tongue.gif)



Brilliant!

quote:Originally posted by KikoSanchez:

I think you're misinterpreting my responses. I am simply putting some 'faith' into science that they will make sense out of the seemingly nonsensical sub-atomic mechanics, first and foremost. I believe, above everything else, that we live in a universe ruled by atleast one thing - causality. If causality goes out the window with quantum mechanics, then it may mean we have to give up lower-level causality as being sensical to any degree. How do all other pragmatic sciences even exist in this universe? They don't, and we give up logical postivism altogether I guess.

I'm not saying you fill in the unknown with God, but simply fill in the unknown with something that atleast seems logical to you. If you read my earlier posts about a system creating itself, I am not necessarily pointing towards some intelligent being god, but I cannot believe a "system-inertia-et-system" either.

I'm not sure what kind of conception you have of quantum mechanics, but it doesn't throw causality "out the window" and is far from nonsensical.

Or at least, such is the impression given to me from what I've read. I'd think to think I'm well-versed in the principles of it, but of course I could hardly do the math. Maybe they're making it all up, who knows.

quote:Originally posted by KikoSanchez:

I believe, above everything else, that we live in a universe ruled by atleast one thing- causality. If causality goes out the window with quantum mechanics, then it may mean we have to give up lower-level causality as being sensical to any degree.



Retro-causality is subject to all mathematical logic inherent in quantum mechanics. It is part of known science. It is possible to throw causality out the window in the quantum world and still live with regular causality in the everyday real world. There's no contradiction. There are some laws that control only quantum particles and other laws that control only the rest of the world we live in.

Quantum mechanics involves a number of weirdnesses, from Heisenberg's uncertainty principle to complementary pairs to the observer effect, that are not an issue in the everyday world around us. That is the "macro" world as opposed to the subatomic quantum "micro" world. Any number of interpretations have been written that are mathematically equivalent to one another but interpret the meaning of these weirdnesses differently. Bohr's Copenhagen interpretation is the most famous. Everett's many-worlds interpretation is gaining favor. Cramer's transactional interpretation is currently supported by few, but may gain in acceptance if these experiments agree with the results he predicts.

In all of these the problem of why the macroworld does not reflect the weirdnesses seen in the microworld is unresolved. Although it may turn out in the end that a new higher-level theory that incorporates quantum mechanics may give a better explanation and make everything clear, it doesn't really make much everyday difference, for we can all live our lives perfectly well by assuming that classical physics explains our actions. This includes cause preceding effect, something that has never been gainsaid in any human action. No supernatural being needs to be posited to explain this.

Any change in our notions of causality will come about in terms of a mathematical expression. Nothing changes in our macroscopic universe. The gears will still mesh exactly as we see them now. Will there be dynamics that we cannot predict from past actions? Of course: we know many today. That says nothing about cause and effect. There is not and can never be an intelligence that lies beyond cause and effect, even if causality is not preserved at the quantum level. Saying so doesn't make it so.



quote:Originally posted by KikoSanchez:

I'm not saying you fill in the unknown with God, but simply fill in the unknown with something that atleast seems logical to you.

How do we do this? Do we come up with a hypothesis on how it all began in a way that makes sense and is comfortable for the brain to comprehend? That's not keepin' it real. I tried do explain to you that what is real, does not necessarily seem logical. Does it seem logical that a steel bar is made up of mostly empty space? Does it seem logical that a seemingly still Earth is hurling through space?

If you can't deal with things working differently on a quantum level, well, all I can suggest is learning more on the subject. Your other options are coming up with a model of the universe that seems to make sense and is comforting to you, or supposing that God(s) are in control. Whatever floats your boat, I guess.

But I have seen things beyond our conceptions of causation on LSD.

quote:Originally posted by Innoculation Scars:

But I have seen things beyond our conceptions of causation on LSD.

Are you going somewhere with this?

Logic deals with cause and effect. What it doesn't deal with, however, is what the initial cause of all other effects is.

Similar to time - time deals with the movement of matter. It doesn't deal with the universe before any matter was known to exist.

All the tools we have to examine the universe in its present are completely inapplicable to the universe at its creation, or before.

i just finished reading "the god delusion" by richard dawkins, it is such a good book.

the bible is a load of old bullshit, and so are other religions. a humanist moral and ethical code is the only one worth following.

evolution and natural selection are proven scientific principles, plate tectonics and geological records are proof beyond doubt that the biblical model of creation is total gibberish. the wars and divisions in humankind are proof that organised religion and organised monotheistic religion is totally unacceptable.

indoctrinating children into religion is a form of child abuse worse than sexual abuse.

all religious people are deluded.

quote:Originally posted by Innoculation Scars:

But I have seen things beyond our conceptions of causation on LSD.

the brain runs first class simulation software, it has been fine tuned over millions of years of evolution to "fill in the gaps" in our perception, to generate fear with no evidence, to err on the side of caution, to imagine what things might be like. LSD breaks a circuit to allow us to experience these states. they are like crazy, mixed up ancestral dreams.

quote:Originally posted by Hexadecimal:

Logic deals with cause and effect. What it doesn't deal with, however, is what the initial cause of all other effects is.

I've never heard of a conception of logic which characterizes it as chiefly concerned with cause and effect. Even given such a conception, your second sentence is difficult to interpret. If logic deals with cause, then if there is a cause of all effects, then logic deals with that cause as well. If logic doesn't deal with it, then it's not a cause (or an effect) after all. But if it's not a cause, then since your characterization of it is "the cause of all other effects" I am left with no way to understand what you might be talking about.

quote:Originally posted by Hexadecimal:

Similar to time - time deals with the movement of matter. It doesn't deal with the universe before any matter was known to exist.

If time deals with the movement of matter, then if matter moved before any matter was known to exist, then time deals and dealt with it. I think what you mean is to say that the notion of time is not relevant to questions about what happens under circumstances in which there is no matter in existence. Hence, if the universe is ever supposed to have been in a state in which there was no matter in it, then it would not make sense to talk about time passing while that state endured. I think it is correct to say there can't be time where there is no matter (if we understand the term "matter" in the right way, for example, as including energy under its extension) but by the same token it makes no sense to talk, as you try to do, about a time "before" any matter existed.



quote:Originally posted by Hexadecimal:

All the tools we have to examine the universe in its present are completely inapplicable to the universe at its creation, or before.

Why should we admit this but not also say that "All the tools I have to examine those segments of the two thousand mile radius region of space I've been able to experience are completely inapplicable to the universe beyond that radius"?

I’ve always seen logic as concerning the structure of arguments and separating good ones from bad ones.

quote:Originally posted by Anti Christ Super Star:



Religion A, B and C believes God is a supernatural force unseen.

All three believe that God is all powerful

However, let's consider this: something is outside of the law of cause and effect.

Brilliant!

Again, not all theists or agnostics assume that God is something defined within those parameters. Many, many moderns take up a deist god as a possible form of god, rather than a god that interjects in the working of the universe, is necessarily intelligent, and is a 'being', instead of simply some force of energy.

I've never heard of a conception of logic which characterizes it as chiefly concerned with cause and effect. Even given such a conception, your second sentence is difficult to interpret. If logic deals with cause, then if there is a cause of all effects, then logic deals with that cause as well. If logic doesn't deal with it, then it's not a cause (or an effect) after all. But if it's not a cause, then since your characterization of it is "the cause of all other effects" I am left with no way to understand what you might be talking about.

For a cause to effectively be examined, there must be a way to find its cause and its effects. A 'first cause' has no prior cause, thus logic can only deal with its effects, and not the first cause itself, as there is nothing before it to derive its attributes from. Evolutionary theory has prior species to derive base attributes that can be modified through mutations from. Abiogenesis has prior energy to derive the base attributes of life from. What does energy derive its attributes from? Logic cannot help us answer this question unless we discover something to have existed before energy; then it can be posed as to what that effect was caused by.

You can attempt inductive logic to figure out the attributes of some initial cause...but the chances of you being right, even if you've put every last piece of existence into consideration, is less than worthwhile.

This idea is akin to 'The tao that is named is not the eternal tao'. Nobody can ever know what started it all, as there is nothing before it to set the stage for examination through logic. It's very much a, 'Alright, something started this shitheap called existence, but we can never know just what it was' sort of deal.

If time deals with the movement of matter, then if matter moved before any matter was known to exist, then time deals and dealt with it. I think what you mean is to say that the notion of time is not relevant to questions about what happens under circumstances in which there is no matter in existence. Hence, if the universe is ever supposed to have been in a state in which there was no matter in it, then it would not make sense to talk about time passing while that state endured. I think it is correct to say there can't be time where there is no matter (if we understand the term "matter" in the right way, for example, as including energy under its extension) but by the same token it makes no sense to talk, as you try to do, about a time "before" any matter existed.

It's not necessarily a 'time' before any matter (I use energy and matter synonymously...compressed air is still air) existed; simply a state. And you understood well what I was saying, so I'll leave this alone.

Why should we admit this but not also say that "All the tools I have to examine those segments of the two thousand mile radius region of space I've been able to experience are completely inapplicable to the universe beyond that radius"?

Because we can still observe the universe outside of our immediate sphere of existence; we can't observe it at creation, collect data on it at creation, or make any verifiable conclusions about it at creation (all of these independent of its creation being atheist or theist). Seems sensible to me. However, if you can make an effective argument as to why I should apply logic to a first cause, I'll throw my thinking out the window.

Edit: Accidentally used HTML instead of UBB.



[This message has been edited by Hexadecimal (edited 11-19-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by KikoSanchez:

I've known of sub-atomic and quantum mechanics principles for quite some time, but they are highly theoretical and many say that their happenings only seem random or by chance only because we do not completely understand it completely yet.

Still no one has answered my criticism of atheism supporting a system which creates itself with no first cause.

I'm much with you. There is evidence of a self-propagating system...but I'm as wary of a self-creating system as I am a god-created system. They're both fucking nuts to me; I try to accept that I'm here, I don't know why, and I should make the best of it for the sake of myself and my loved ones...and if there IS any god out there, I suppose for it, too.

quote:Originally posted by stormshadowftb:

the brain runs first class simulation software, it has been fine tuned over millions of years of evolution to "fill in the gaps" in our perception, to generate fear with no evidence, to err on the side of caution, to imagine what things might be like. LSD breaks a circuit to allow us to experience these states. they are like crazy, mixed up ancestral dreams.

Cool post.

someone said my post was cool.

i've ruined it now havn't i?

quote:Originally posted by KikoSanchez:



Still no one has answered my criticism of atheism supporting a system which creates itself with no first cause.

What is there to answer? Either we currently have reason to believe that it is possible, in which case you have no point, or we currently do not know, in which case, you have no point.

There is absolutely nothing wrong in saying "I currently do not know", nor does saying "I currently do not know" make you a theist or agnostic.

There is no god.

This is exactly why I'm specific in say, THE LORD JESUS CHRIST. There are many 'gods' people serve, but if they're not serving Jesus Christ, the ONLY way, then they're serving Demons. It's the Truth.

-Who's the God of this World's system?

-Who's Kingdom are your tranlated into when you're born again?

-How do you operate in the Kingdom of God?

-How do you operating in this World's system?

Simple questions deserve simple answers.

Ah. I'm going to share this.. simply because My Father is so simple. I was meditating on the Word of God, and I began to meditate on the wonders of His creations.

We have ONE hand, with FIVE fingers. Isn't that awesome?

Then space. I was thinking about the Sun. Yall bear with me, it was intense when it was revealed to me. These 9+ planets revolve ON IT'S ACCESS, in it's PARTICULAR destination, around the sun. It runs its course, while the sun stays the source.

The thing about evolution is the missing link. IT'S MISSING!! No, seriously. Like one man put it, it requires more FAITH to believe in that. It does! It pleases man to have knowledge, but in their search of knowledge they stumble across foolishness. If they'd seek GOD, the God of Moses, Abraham, Jacob, Issiac, David, and so on. MY GOD. He'd become their God and give unto them liberally. But WHO can understand the mind of God? Why questin HIS ways? His thoughts aren't like ours. His thoughts are good thoughts, and they're complete thoughts. Dare we believe we can understand such holy purity?

I seek Him and a relationship with Him, and I know that His Word has the power to tranform me into His likeliness.

Poster above me should crawl in a hole and die. Maybe there you'll find your "god" and your "saviour" jesus.

Sorry I get upset when people pull religious bullshit in the middle of a good discussion.

EDIT:Spelling

[This message has been edited by Conflict of Harmony (edited 11-24-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by HellzShellz:

We have ONE hand, with FIVE fingers. Isn't that awesome?

To quote Hume: "Often, what appears to be purpose, where it looks like object X has feature F in order to secure some outcome O, is better explained by a filtering process: that is, object X wouldn't be around did it not possess feature F, and outcome O is only interesting to us as a human projection of goals onto nature."

This was the precursor to, you guessed it, natural selection.

quote:I was thinking about the Sun. Yall bear with me, it was intense when it was revealed to me. These 9+ planets revolve ON IT'S ACCESS, in it's PARTICULAR destination, around the sun. It runs its course, while the sun stays the source.

1. read up on gravity

2. there's loads of planets that don't revole on an access, but ride randomly and chaotically outside of our solar system



quote:The thing about evolution is the missing link. IT'S MISSING!! No, seriously. Like one man put it, it requires more FAITH to believe in that. It does! It pleases man to have knowledge, but in their search of knowledge they stumble across foolishness. If they'd seek GOD, the God of Moses, Abraham, Jacob, Issiac, David, and so on. MY GOD. He'd become their God and give unto them liberally. But WHO can understand the mind of God? Why questin HIS ways? His thoughts aren't like ours. His thoughts are good thoughts, and they're complete thoughts. Dare we believe we can understand such holy purity?

Yes, it takes much, much, much more faith to believe in the fossils, DNA, observed micro-evolution, and numerous other evidences for a theory that has been under scrutiny for years and always stood the test than a book that could have been written by anyone filled with historical inaccuracies, contradictions and shit like talking-serpents. http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)



[This message has been edited by Raw_Power (edited 11-24-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by stormshadowftb:

i just finished reading "the god delusion" by richard dawkins, it is such a good book.

I need to read some stuff by Dawkins... Haven't read anything by him yet.

the bible is a load of old bullshit, and so are other religions. a humanist moral and ethical code is the only one worth following.

Have you ever read the bible?

I also feel that the Bible and Religion are seperate from each other (As are all religious texts). In that a religion can use a religious text to make it's point, to focus belief and give something that believers can themselves read, but a religious text can be viewed seperately from a religion as merely a philosophical tex (as I rambled on about in another thread).

A humanist can be religious as well. (if you dispute this type "Religious Humanism" into google.) There is no need for a religion to doubt the worth of the individual, indeed the Bible itself places importance on individuals, it is the "sinners" that must be saved. Jesus came down to save those that sinned and unbelievers, not those that already had salvation in their grasp.

evolution and natural selection are proven scientific principles, plate tectonics and geological records are proof beyond doubt that the biblical model of creation is total gibberish.

Perhaps if you are biblical (I'll use this to describe a wide variety of religious texts)literalist. If you believe that the bible is comepletely literal, then perhaps this does pose a problem, but even then it can be overcome by saying, "God is testing our faith." Or "God made it that way."

However I feel that you have to have a weak understanding of not religion ,but literature to take a biblical text comepletely literally. I read a novel, do I feel that all of it is real? I read a metaphor do I really believe that the sea is made of sapphire?

Believing literally I feel is a weakness, one that is bred into people from those who wish to control them.

the wars and divisions in humankind are proof that organised religion and organised monotheistic religion is totally unacceptable.

I feel that this is so weak that it falls in on itself. To say that , to me, is to say that religion is the sole cause of strife and problems in the world. This is somehting that I cannot accpet in the slightest. How many atheists will commit bad acts? and the same with religious people?

I feel that this is like saying:

1)People have problems and there are wars.

2)Some of these problems are related to religion.

3)Religion is the cause of all problems and wars.

This is easily seen to be false.

It is the individual that causes bad , not the religion. Surely if you feel that there is no god , then you must feel that a man is entirely resposible for his own actions. And if a man is responsible for his action then religion cannot be blamed fully (I admit that this is pretty weak).

indoctrinating children into religion is a form of child abuse worse than sexual abuse.

all religious people are deluded.

I have my doubts about the first part. Ask a sexually abused child whether they liked getting raped more than going to church every now and then.

Well... I rambled...

Have you ever read the bible?

I have. Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics is far more humanitarian than that piece of fluff, and the Old Testament makes me physically sick.

Christians accuse me of being ignorant of the Bible all the time. "Have you even read it?!" they scream. "Maybe if you read it you'd see!!!" Except... I have. Religious school for four years. Four years of Bible class. Really, it took a thorough reading of the Bible to make me a complete atheist!

quote:Originally posted by Twisted_Ferret:

Christians accuse me of being ignorant of the Bible all the time. "Have you even read it?!" they scream. "Maybe if you read it you'd see!!!"

That really pisses me off.

quote:Originally posted by JesuitArtiste:

I need to read some stuff by Dawkins... Haven't read anything by him yet.

the bible is a load of old bullshit, and so are other religions. a humanist moral and ethical code is the only one worth following.

Have you ever read the bible?

I also feel that the Bible and Religion are seperate from each other (As are all religious texts). In that a religion can use a religious text to make it's point, to focus belief and give something that believers can themselves read, but a religious text can be viewed seperately from a religion as merely a philosophical tex (as I rambled on about in another thread).

A humanist can be religious as well. (if you dispute this type "Religious Humanism" into google.) There is no need for a religion to doubt the worth of the individual, indeed the Bible itself places importance on individuals, it is the "sinners" that must be saved. Jesus came down to save those that sinned and unbelievers, not those that already had salvation in their grasp.

evolution and natural selection are proven scientific principles, plate tectonics and geological records are proof beyond doubt that the biblical model of creation is total gibberish.

Perhaps if you are biblical (I'll use this to describe a wide variety of religious texts)literalist. If you believe that the bible is comepletely literal, then perhaps this does pose a problem, but even then it can be overcome by saying, "God is testing our faith." Or "God made it that way."

However I feel that you have to have a weak understanding of not religion ,but literature to take a biblical text comepletely literally. I read a novel, do I feel that all of it is real? I read a metaphor do I really believe that the sea is made of sapphire?

Believing literally I feel is a weakness, one that is bred into people from those who wish to control them.

the wars and divisions in humankind are proof that organised religion and organised monotheistic religion is totally unacceptable.

I feel that this is so weak that it falls in on itself. To say that , to me, is to say that religion is the sole cause of strife and problems in the world. This is somehting that I cannot accpet in the slightest. How many atheists will commit bad acts? and the same with religious people?

I feel that this is like saying:

1)People have problems and there are wars.

2)Some of these problems are related to religion.

3)Religion is the cause of all problems and wars.

This is easily seen to be false.

It is the individual that causes bad , not the religion. Surely if you feel that there is no god , then you must feel that a man is entirely resposible for his own actions. And if a man is responsible for his action then religion cannot be blamed fully (I admit that this is pretty weak).

indoctrinating children into religion is a form of child abuse worse than sexual abuse.

all religious people are deluded.

I have my doubts about the first part. Ask a sexually abused child whether they liked getting raped more than going to church every now and then.

Well... I rambled...

i'm talking about humanist ethics, NOT religious humanism, they are different and seperate.

i don't give a fuck if you can swallow what i'm saying, maybe you can tolerate the religious and their spreading of ignorance and brainless badness throughout the whole planet but i have a hard time aCCEPTING IT, this is why i have an extreme view and you don't because you are STUPID>

Bump, 'cause I'm tired of looking at King's stretched post.