main
side
curve
  1. In Memory of LAJ_FETT: Please share your remembrances and condolences HERE

A Logical Look at the Existence (or Non-Existence) of God.

Discussion in 'Archive: The Senate Floor' started by Lady Viskor, Nov 22, 2003.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Cheveyo

    Cheveyo Jedi Grand Master star 5

    Registered:
    Oct 29, 2001
    If I may jump in momentarily to field this question:

    So, is the Big Bang a fact?

    First, what is a theory?
    A theory is more like a scientific law than a hypothesis. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. One scientist cannot create a theory; he can only create a hypothesis.

    In general, both a scientific theory and a scientific law are accepted to be true by the scientific community as a whole. Both are used to make predictions of events. Both are used to advance technology.

    The biggest difference between a law and a theory is that a theory is much more complex and dynamic. A law governs a single action, whereas a theory explains a whole series of related phenomena.

    An analogy can be made using a slingshot and an automobile.

    A scientific law is like a slingshot. A slingshot has but one moving part--the rubber band. If you put a rock in it and draw it back, the rock will fly out at a predictable speed, depending upon the distance the band is drawn back.

    An automobile has many moving parts, all working in unison to perform the chore of transporting someone from one point to another point. An automobile is a complex piece of machinery. Sometimes, improvements are made to one or more component parts. A new set of spark plugs that are composed of a better alloy that can withstand heat better, for example, might replace the existing set. But the function of the automobile as a whole remains unchanged.

    A theory is like the automobile. Components of it can be changed or improved upon, without changing the overall truth of the theory as a whole.
    source
    Having said that, the Big Bang theory is widely accepted by the scientific community as an explanation for the genesis of the universe.
    Other widely accepted theories:
    Theory of Evolution
    Theory of Relativity
    Quantum Theory
    Theory of Gravity
    Cell Theory
    Germ Theory of Disease
    Plate Tectonics Theory
    Unified Field Theory
    Atomic Theory

    source
    "Theories can be tweaked, but they are seldom, if ever, entirely replaced."
    source

     
  2. _Darth_Brooks_

    _Darth_Brooks_ Jedi Padawan star 4

    Registered:
    Sep 27, 2000
    Wonderful, but ignoring the point.

    Yes, Cheveyo, we all know scientists are constantly amending themselves and each other.
    And geocentrism was "tweaked" into heliocentrism.


    The slowing of the universe was "tweaked" into the acceleration of the universe.
    That's a pretty dramatic "tweak" wouldn't you say?

    The Theory remains although after major "tweaks."

    So, the "Theory" as a whole was wrong. It was not a fact, at least not in it's previous form.




    So, how many more "tweaks" or are we finished "tweaking"?

    That would be more in line with my points.


    So, what was the "truth" of the theory? That the heavens are being spread out? Y'know, the Holy Bible said that before any other source by about 4,000 years.

    So, is the Big Bang really a Biblical theory? Is it science or religion?


     
  3. Cheveyo

    Cheveyo Jedi Grand Master star 5

    Registered:
    Oct 29, 2001
    How many "tweaks" has the Bible gone through?

    Is it accurate now?

    What made it innacurate before?

     
  4. _Darth_Brooks_

    _Darth_Brooks_ Jedi Padawan star 4

    Registered:
    Sep 27, 2000
    Cheveyo,

    Name some Biblical "tweaks." Translations are not "tweaks," but translations.

    But, for the sake of argument, let's assume I agree with you, that the Bible is a fiction...that doesn't by default elevate certain scientific hypotheses to the realm of fact.

     
  5. TreeCave

    TreeCave Jedi Padawan star 4

    Registered:
    Jul 28, 2001
    my next question for you is...what exactly do you think the reason is that we are here...are you for the evolution argument??

    I don't purport to know how we got here - I can't prove my whole existence isn't a computer simulation or dream. But in the context of this argument, it's worth pointing out that evolution is at least as good a guess how we got here as is "God did it".

    As for why we're here - this is highly speculative and philosophical, and I doubt anyone will agree with me - but I believe we're here by accident. Consciousness was the result of systemic anomalies, not part of a plan. Currently, we are nothing but wormfood breeding more of ourselves, for no purpose whatsoever. However, now that we ARE conscious, *I* believe we are capable of imbuing life with purpose. I believe this is why we have embraced ideas like "we incarnate over and over again until we learn all our life lessons" and "God has a purpose for us". We are seeking/creating our own purpose.
     
  6. Cheveyo

    Cheveyo Jedi Grand Master star 5

    Registered:
    Oct 29, 2001
    Name some Biblical "tweaks."

    Here is a start.

    But, for the sake of argument, let's assume I agree with you, that the Bible is a fiction...that doesn't by default elevate certain scientific hypotheses to the realm of fact.

    Make this personal, Brooks, and you will have all already invalidated your position. I have not said that the Bible was fiction. In fact, I did not reference the Bible at all my first post. Neither did I suggest that calling the Bible a work of fiction would validate the Big Bang theory as fact. I already explained what a scientific theory was, and I don't believe I used the word "fact" in the explanation.

     
  7. _Darth_Brooks_

    _Darth_Brooks_ Jedi Padawan star 4

    Registered:
    Sep 27, 2000
    Enforcer,

    The Bible itself asks the question, what is a day to God?

    The Bible itself is addressing and pointing out the relativity of the nature of time.

    Something science is only now addressing in the words of Einsteins and Hawkings, at least as something factual as phenomenon, but which theologians have considered for centuries.

    In other words, to ask, "What is time to God," isn't at all off the cuff.



     
  8. _Darth_Brooks_

    _Darth_Brooks_ Jedi Padawan star 4

    Registered:
    Sep 27, 2000
    Cheveyo,


    I have in no way made this personal.

    Nor do I intend to get into the defence of the historicity and integrity of scripture. I believe there is a seperate thread for that, but it is only a distraction from my actual point.

    I can likewise present you with abundant links if you wish to play the "link" game.

    But, you are basically ignoring all of my very valid points.



    What I've seen happen time and again, is somehow individual's illogically think that an attack upon the integrity of a Holy book somehow magically confers strength to certain scientific speculations centered around an arrangement of data.... which can have more than a single interpretation of the data which cohesively explains what is observed.


    The point here is simple...dogmatic assertion of scientific hypotheses or "theories" as "truth" have been demonstrated to be prematurely unwarranted.

    Seperate fact from speculation, what is actually known from what is not.

    To not do so is ignorance, even if it is done in attempting to hide behind the "scientific." (I'm not referring to you, personally, at all, please do not take this the wrong way.)

    And, when one does so, one may be very surprised. By what is known and what is not actually known.

     
  9. Cheveyo

    Cheveyo Jedi Grand Master star 5

    Registered:
    Oct 29, 2001
    (I'm not referring to you, personally, at all, please do not take this the wrong way.)

    Duly noted.

    But, you are basically ignoring all of my very valid points.

    I belive this addresses your points:

    The a priori prejudice of the outlook of philosophical naturalism is centered by definition on faith, not provable factuality.
    Assertion: The Big Bang Theory is a hypothesis. "The point here is simple...dogmatic assertion of scientific hypotheses or "theories" as "truth" have been demonstrated to be prematurely unwarranted."
    Correction: A theory is more like a scientific law than a hypothesis. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. One scientist cannot create a theory; he can only create a hypothesis.

    In general, both a scientific theory and a scientific law are accepted to be true by the scientific community as a whole. Both are used to make predictions of events. Both are used to advance technology.

     
  10. MasterZap

    MasterZap Jedi Padawan star 4

    Registered:
    Aug 11, 2002
    As for your other post above, please provide "proof positive" or realize that creationists take the exact same data and line it up "congruently" with their own hypothesis.

    That, sir, is the point.

    It is the exact same data both sides are "congruently" using to make their hypothetical cases


    There is one huge difference:

    One side uses the data and speculates on what they can know from that data alone.

    The other side, speculates much further, completely baselessly.

    For example; Tell me where in the fossil record you can find that the name of God is Yahweh?

    Tell me where in the DNA you can see that Woman was created from the rib of Man.

    Tell me where is the archeological evidence (or any evidence whatsoever) for the existance of a person named "Jesus"?

    And so on.

    And so on.

    My problem with theism isn't the basic speculation, i.e. the "I have this feeling that some one, an entity, thing, whatever, put this together for some reason".

    I can understand that reasoning. It appeals to humans to think that way, because our minds are wired badly which make us want to think that way, antropomorphising stuff. But alas, I can understand that thought. And I can't "disprove" it, other than saying that

    a) I think it's ridiculous
    b) Show the psychological evidence why people think these things

    BUT then the theist comes running not with some vague sense of "I think there might be somethign", oh no, but a complete worldview containing angels, layers of heaven, hell, name of the diety, actions, words, deeds... all blatantly unprovable, all blatantly shining of mythological traits, all clearly bearing the blinking neon signs saying "I AM FICTION! I AM MYTH!", and yet these people are completely oblivious to this obvious truth, OR the fact that their entire worldview, while perhaps (if you stretch it the way THEY want it, which normally takes massive tweaking of reality) is "congruent" with "observed fact", it still filled with baseless speculation.

    THERE is the difference.

    If you want to argue creation, go ahead. You can never claim God did it and a pantheon of purple goblins with six multidimensional tails did not.

    I.e. as soon as you baselessly invoke "God" I can just counter and say the Invisible Pink Unicorn created the universe yesterday, comlpete with fabrication of everything, including false memories of our previous lives.

    Completely congruent with fact too, that. So lets go out and evanglize and build churches and blow stuff up int he name of her holiness the IPU.

    /Z
     
  11. Darth Mischievous

    Darth Mischievous Jedi Grand Master star 6

    Registered:
    Oct 12, 1999
    I will reiterate the point that proving the existence of God via utilization of physical measurement is oxymoronic. You're trying to prove something that exists above the physical realm using physically measurable tests and standards.

    It's an answer that can never be fulfilled by a simple mathematical equation or theory that is bound by the limitations of natural law.

    So, again, we're back at square one: a matter of belief (faith) on all sides. As a 'theist', I believe in the existence of God based upon Judeo-Christian philosophy, prophecy, history, and principles. The atheist has a belief that God does not exist due to various reasons, mainly which center upon provability within natural testing limits (e.g., all theology is fiction unless proved via the scientific method). Agnostics are uncertain as to the matter, so choose to neither believe nor disbelieve.
     
  12. MasterZap

    MasterZap Jedi Padawan star 4

    Registered:
    Aug 11, 2002
    I will reiterate the point that proving the existence of God via utilization of physical measurement is oxymoronic. You're trying to prove something that exists above the physical realm using physically measurable tests and standards.


    And I will reiterate, that if the existance of the "God" or the "supernatural" cannot be detected in any way (even indirectly), it means that it can have no effect on our physical world - even indirectly. "To have effect" is synonymous to "To be detectable". "To not be detectable" is synonymous with "Not have any effect".

    So while this hypothetical supernatural realm may "exist", it still, for all practical purpouses, doesn't exist, since it has no effect on our physical realm.

    IF however, you allow the "supernatural" to have effect on "the natural", then it is detetable (even if indirectly), and hence actually is by definition natural, not "supernatural" (it may be beyond the "physical" in the everyday sense, but it is still part of "all there is", which is "nature"). So, in the end, supernaturalism, by definition, invalidates itself.

    Basically, you can't have your cake and eat it to; Either God can do things in our physical realm, and hence is detectable, and hence studiable (and hence, I might add, "natural")... or he can not, and hence is marginalized to obscure trivia best ignored.

    So, again, we're back at square one: a matter of belief (faith) on all sides. As a 'theist', I believe in the existence of God based upon Judeo-Christian philosophy, prophecy, history, and principles.
    ...which comes from what evidence? Since you clearly say there is no physical (or even indirect) evidence, then these evidence are either made up on the spot, OR must have come from earlier physical (or indirect) evidence.


    The atheist has a belief that God does not exist due to various reasons, mainly which center upon provability within natural testing limits (e.g., all theology is fiction unless proved via the scientific method).


    Well, no theology has been able to show any sign of being anything but mythology. And theologicans have blinders on to the fact that what they are doing is mythology. It's sad, but true.

    Agnostics are uncertain as to the matter, so choose to neither believe nor disbelieve
    That's "personal agnosticism". "Universal agnosticism" says that the ultimate reality is unknowable, not only that they don't know, that nobody can ever know.

    And of course nobody can ever know the "ultimate reality". That is obvious and undisputable. In that regard, I am an "universal agnostic".

    But the realm of Theism, however, is a different ball of wax. The fact that theism is false is so blindingly obvious I can't even fathom how anyone can take it seriously; Hence, I am a universal agnostic (in relation to "the nature of the ultimate reality") but a clear ATHEIST in relation to "theism" (whish is blindingly obviously a manmade pastime)

    /Z
     
  13. Darth Mischievous

    Darth Mischievous Jedi Grand Master star 6

    Registered:
    Oct 12, 1999
    So, you're saying that you'd like to scientifically replicate a miracle or divine intervention to prove that God exists?

    Now, that would be playing God, now wouldn't it?

    If God has indeed acted throughout history, as I believe He has, then your argument is that it is unrealistic to believe in God unless a human being can test that miracle, replicate it, and do so on his own?

    Doesn't this simply reinforce what I have already said concerning the ultimately oxymoronic argument presented here concerning naturalistic testing methods and the Divine?

    I can understand your skepticism due to your disbelief in anything outside of naturalism or the measured observable, but do you realize how absurd it is that God would be a measureable and testable entity for a human being to replicate any time they desire based upon the JudeoChristian concept of what God is?

    Your argument basically deems that we play God to prove God - which doesn't make sense to begin with. To prove that God does not exist because there is no physical way to replicate His works, deeds, et cetera is simply against the very notion of what God Is as is defined and believed to be to begin with.

    Your beliefs lie in what you can see and replicate, and you believe that unless it is replicatable via the scientific method, then it does not exist. Your belief leads to the presumption of belief (faith) that God does not exist.

    You must also understand that you will never be able to replicate scientifically what you seek to find - ultimate meaning, truth, whatever.
     
  14. MasterZap

    MasterZap Jedi Padawan star 4

    Registered:
    Aug 11, 2002
    So, you're saying that you'd like to scientifically replicate a miracle or divine intervention to prove that God exists?
    I never said *I* had to "cause" the Miracle, only that if it occured it would be detectable. If miracles aren't detectable, they can't actually *do* anything, and are hence meaningless.

    If a miracle can't even move a single quark out of alignment, they ain't much use, are they? And if they can, they can be measured.


    If God has indeed acted throughout history, as I believe He has, then your argument is that it is unrealistic to believe in God unless a human being can test that miracle, replicate it, and do so on his own?
    You misunderstand. That is not what I am saying.

    Doesn't this simply reinforce what I have already said concerning the ultimately oxymoronic argument presented here concerning naturalistic testing methods and the Divine?
    In a word - no.

    I can understand your skepticism due to your disbelief in anything outside of naturalism or the measured observable,
    Remember, that "observable" is equal to "have an effect". If the supernatural is not "observable" it cannot have any effect whatsoever, and can hence be ignored.

    but do you realize how absurd it is that God would be a measureable and testable entity for a human being to replicate any time


    UH... what? Who said anything about replicating God? Thats nonsense.

    Your argument basically deems that we play God to prove God - which doesn't make sense to begin with.
    Again, not at all what I am saying.

    Your beliefs lie in what you can see and replicate, and you believe that unless it is replicatable via the scientific method, then it does not exist.
    You misunderstand the word "replicate" in this context. God should be able to replicate the miracle. Do a double blind study on the results of prayer to get a cat down of a tree vs. using a firetruck to do the same.

    Your belief leads to the presumption of belief (faith) that God does not exist.
    That God doesn't exist is the obvious given. God is a baseless speculation.

    You presume the invisible pink unicorn doesnt' exist - yet it is perfectly congruent with everything ever detected and that ever will be detected. Why? Because I say so, and I am the holy spokeperson of Her Grace the IPU.

    The problem with all theists is they take the concept of "God" as given deserving no justification. The difference between arguing the Big Bang and arguign God is diametrically opposite. Big Bang can be reasoned to. God needs to be presumed, and can then be "made" to fit data.

    Clearly, human invention.

    Show me a theist, any theist, who doesn't start from a preconscieved notion of what God is, and argue from there. Shoe me a theist, any theist, who truly argued from scratch to a Judeo-Christian God, with nothing but logic and no outside presumption bias. You wont succeed.

    Tell a six year old about the doppler shift of galaxies, and they would be able to devise the basics of the Big Bang theory.

    Theism is arbitrary and unfounded. Science is neither. While both are brands of "speculation", their methodology and conceptuality is diametrically opposite.

    /Z
     
  15. Darth Mischievous

    Darth Mischievous Jedi Grand Master star 6

    Registered:
    Oct 12, 1999
    You're asking to test miracles, e.g., divine intervention, as is the case with certain naturalistic phenomenon. Therefore, essentially, you're asking to replicate the Divine Will, or 'play' God, in other words. So, my assertion is correct.

    You should obviously know that this statement is false by your own logic:

    If the supernatural is not "observable" it cannot have any effect whatsoever, and can hence be ignored.


    If you cannot measure something, does that imply that it does not exist? Again, I reiterate that you're utilizing oxymoronic methods for trying to conceptualize the Divine with physical measurement and methodology - something that does not work (for obvious reasons), nor fits the Judeo-Christian conception of the Divine (and the spirit).

    So, what you're basically asking is for God to do what you wish (as in a miracle) and to prove to you that He exists based upon your ability to utilize a physical measurement of some kind to measure and possibly replicate divine intervention or quantify it with the scientific method?
     
  16. Force of Nature

    Force of Nature Jedi Youngling star 3

    Registered:
    Nov 12, 1999
    "If you cannot measure something, does that imply that it does not exist?"

    Not necessarily. It does, however, make it difficult, if not impossible, to form any meaningful idea of its nature ... IMO, of course. :)
     
  17. MasterZap

    MasterZap Jedi Padawan star 4

    Registered:
    Aug 11, 2002
    You're asking to test miracles, e.g., divine intervention, as is the case with certain naturalistic phenomenon. Therefore, essentially, you're asking to replicate the Divine Will, or 'play' God, in other words. So, my assertion is correct.
    No.


    If the supernatural is not "observable" it cannot have any effect whatsoever, and can hence be ignored.
    This is quite true.


    If you cannot measure something, does that imply that it does not exist?
    If something can not have any effect, even indirectly, it's actual existance or nonexistance is completely irrelevant, and it can, for all practical purpouses, be seen as not existing.

    If there is an invisible gnome behind every quark, but we can never detect them, they do nothing, have no impact on the operation of the quark.... their actual "existance" or not is of no importance.


    Again, I reiterate that you're utilizing oxymoronic methods for trying to conceptualize the Divine with physical measurement and methodology - something that does not work (for obvious reasons)
    If the effect of devine miracles cannot be measured, they do not exist. Effect == measurability. Non-measurability == no effect == meaningless == can be ignored and treated as for all practical purposues not existing.

    You have to make up your mind; Can a devine miracle affect the physical world? A simple Yes or No will suffice.

    nor fits the Judeo-Christian conception of the Divine (and the spirit).
    If reality doesnt fit your concept, hey, not my problem.

    So, what you're basically asking is for God to do what you wish (as in a miracle) and to prove to you that He exists based upon your ability to utilize a physical measurement of some kind to measure and possibly replicate divine intervention or quantify it with the scientific method?
    He doesnt have to do "as I wish", just do something - anything - measurable.

    So far, he has not.

    How come, as an aside, that 99.9% of the miracles Jesus did in the Bible was of a medical nature? Of the nature that could in almost every case be explained psychosomatically? I find this interesting indeed.


    Of course, you forgot to comment on the fact that theism is arbitrary based on no data. (Or if it is based on data, any data, it ceases to, by definition, be supernatural).

    Do you consider prophets data? Someting that, with no other empirical evidence to back it up, is indistuingisable from simply "making stuff up"?

    Where is the data for theism? Nowhere is where.

    While Science may be "speculation", it is at least founded, unlike the unfounded speculations of theism.


    It's sad, that Gods and Theism is so prevalent in our culture that even athesits doesn't understand what its really about... even atheists are thinking in terms "does god or does god not exist", which is not the question at all. The question is, "does the concept of a god make sense" (no it doesnt) and "is there any data that points to theism" (no there isnt, it's just a concept "taken for granted" due to cultural induction).

    /Z
     
  18. Jabbadabbado

    Jabbadabbado Manager Emeritus star 7 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Mar 19, 1999
    Zap, I couldn't agree with that last statement more. Cultural indoctrination gives theism an an unearned advantage over all other conceivable claims of the supernatural.
     
  19. EnforcerSG

    EnforcerSG Jedi Padawan star 4

    Registered:
    Sep 12, 2001
    So, you're saying that you'd like to scientifically replicate a miracle or divine intervention to prove that God exists?

    Actually I want to point out that we as humans have done miracles. Medicine can stop a persons heart and thing bring the person back to life. Charities have performed miracles to thousands if not more people. Many blind people can now see thanks to new practices. I wonder what other miracles that we have done that are greater and grander than what God did in the Bible?

    EDIT: I better tell the truth more often...
     
  20. MasterZap

    MasterZap Jedi Padawan star 4

    Registered:
    Aug 11, 2002
    Cultural indoctrination gives theism an an unearned advantage over all other conceivable claims of the supernatural.


    Exactly; Which makes the very question of the thread title question-begging by nature. I much prefer the title of the other thread, "A higher power - fact or fiction" which is much more appropriate.

    Theism is based on unfounded speculation and no evidence, and therefore deserves no special attention compared to any other unfounded speculation based on no evidence, like for example the hypothesis of the Invisible Pink Unicorn.

    /Z
     
  21. epic

    epic Ex Mod star 8 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Jul 4, 1999
    Brooks: I noticed you listed no specific example of my "erroneous descriptions."

    the specific example is the outlook you have of the theist faith and the scientific method, which my previous post was about. you didn't notice that it was the thing that was wrong because it's your own outlook and you, obviously, think you're right.

    this is why things seem to go around in circles in these threads. theists will never admit that their outlook is the problem, when it's the factor generally at stake. anyway, i digress.

    That implied 'assumption' that I've never give a 'fair shake' to science on your part should give you some idea as to how off-base you are in your opinion and understanding of me and the amount of time I have put into investigating both sides of the coin.

    i'm not commenting on whether you've given enough time to science -- i'm commenting on how you misunderstand how science, as a system and a method, works.

    Yes, Cheveyo, we all know scientists are constantly amending themselves and each other...

    The slowing of the universe was "tweaked" into the acceleration of the universe.
    That's a pretty dramatic "tweak" wouldn't you say?

    So, the "Theory" as a whole was wrong. It was not a fact, at least not in it's previous form.

    So, how many more "tweaks" or are we finished "tweaking"?


    let me know if i'm hearing your overall point correctly.

    what you're saying is that scientists come up with one thing that seems to fit, a few years later they come up with something else so they change it, and again and again, each time "amending", or "tweaking" it, stating it as a truth all the time -- yet, it was amended from what was previously known as a truth -- so -- how can it have ever been a truth?

    and believe me i can understand how theists, in what i would say their attempts to validate their faith by limiting the scope of the "adversary", can think this way about science if they misinterpret the system for what it is and only go by what they themselves think of the process.

    you have a contempt for these "tweaks", implying they're seemingly random at the will of the latest scientist, like your slowing/expanding universe tweak example. but the difference is that there is a progression -- the "tweaks" that don't work, that are flat out wrong, like any number you probably know about (incorrect positioning of the earth, sun, etc), or even evidence listed that turns out to be wrong (an incorrect skull once labelled as proof of evolution turning out to be of a pig or something) will not survive. if you think of all the things science has got wrong, which you do, then that's the first step -- that's good -- it shows you understand that science is progressive, that it changes, continually probing for new information, new ways to explain things more effectively, and that it doesn't merely rest behind certain, unchallengeable givens as theism does -- the second step is to acknowledge that all those incorrect things are in the PAST. this point is to illustrate the progressive nature of science -- that scientific ideas, theories, "facts", in the long run, aren't hapharzard and random. if you look at the kind of things science is exploring today compared to even a 100 years ago there is a marked increase in knowledge, scope, information... surely you don't deny this. innovation and technology is proof in itself that science seemingly is moving forward in some way and that all these theories and ideas aren't just up in the air and speculative and liable to change at a whim.

    as for the PAST point -- i said all the wrong turns are in the past (and i don't mean to exclude them from the present, and no doubt the future, because they'll happen inevitably) -- you've said that, and i paraphrase -- while we may know they're wrong now, we thought they were the TRUTH then -- so who's to say that what we say NOW is the truth?

    the fact is, and which has been stated innumerable times already, that we don't know that what we currently know and understand about the universe is the [
     
  22. Space_Man

    Space_Man Jedi Youngling star 3

    Registered:
    Aug 16, 2003
    Zap & epic O.K., so if we've set-up this criteria of needing observable/verifiable evidence of [insert theist concept here] being able to effect the physical world in some manner, I would ask this: who here would like to offer "proof" of the existence of the human emotion called "love" -- specifically, by citing (and perhaps arguing-for) how "love" has served as an impetus for all kinds of actions taken by humans within the physical world? Or would either of you tell me I'm trying to compare apples (my example herein) to oranges (the efforts to show proof of "God")? But then, what about my asking for "proof" of the emotion called "love?" Will you concede that it is not provable -- even though you still might personally believe in the concept of human emotions -- or will you acknowledge that the utterly intangible presence of "love" can have a physical effect of some sort among us humans?
     
  23. TreeCave

    TreeCave Jedi Padawan star 4

    Registered:
    Jul 28, 2001
    even atheists are thinking in terms "does god or does god not exist", which is not the question at all.

    I always thought the question was "what IS God?" If the answer is "just a fantasy", that's fine, but if there IS a god, just knowing it exists is meaningless without some degree of understanding.

    As for Brooks' "tweaks", what should we think of the hundreds of Christian denominations as? Aren't they all a group of theorists unable to decide on the "true" gospel? How is that different from Harvard and MIT publishing somewhat contradictory findings about something? Luther was "tweaking" the Catholic religion when he started the Protestant Reformation. The trend continues, every time two old codgers at a local chapel can't agree on whether the believers will be swept up before Armageddon or have to suffer along with the rest of us. Believe me, I have personally watched churches split over stupider disagreements than that.

    who here would like to offer "proof" of the existence of the human emotion called "love" -- specifically, by citing (and perhaps arguing-for) how "love" has served as an impetus for all kinds of actions taken by humans within the physical world?

    Love is completely tangible, though. It's the result of hormonal reactions that stimulate appropriate evolutionary responses. That heart-tug you feel when a baby adores you - that gets you to care for the baby. That craving you feel for a romantic partner, that keeps you breeding more people. Love can - whether or not we have the technology to do this meaningfully yet or not - be measured entirely in brainwaves, hormone levels and neural responses.

    If God exists, I suspect he could be measured the same way, but is so far outside our ability to recognize that we could stumble over him without realizing we'd "found" him.
     
  24. Space_Man

    Space_Man Jedi Youngling star 3

    Registered:
    Aug 16, 2003
    TC: Love is completely tangible, though. It's the result of hormonal reactions that stimulate appropriate evolutionary responses. Love can be measured entirely in brainwaves, hormone levels and neural responses.

    LOL -- you got me! Is it too late to specify that I'm referring to emotions in terms of feelings only, and not necessarily the scientific/physiological depictions of an emotional process?
     
  25. Cheveyo

    Cheveyo Jedi Grand Master star 5

    Registered:
    Oct 29, 2001


    who here would like to offer "proof" of the existence of the human emotion called "love" -- specifically, by citing (and perhaps arguing-for) how "love" has served as an impetus for all kinds of actions taken by humans within the physical world? Or would either of you tell me I'm trying to compare apples (my example herein) to oranges (the efforts to show proof of "God")? But then, what about my asking for "proof" of the emotion called "love?" Will you concede that it is not provable -- even though you still might personally believe in the concept of human emotions -- or will you acknowledge that the utterly intangible presence of "love" can have a physical effect of some sort among us humans?

    offer "proof" of the existence of the human emotion called "love"
    Scientifically speaking, the emotion of love is generated by chemicals in the body.
    The three stages of love:
    - Lust
    - Attraction
    - Attachment


    The Science of [b]Lust[/b]
    Lust is driven by the sex hormones [b]testosterone[/b] and [b]oestrogen[/b]. Testosterone is not confined only to men. It has also been shown to play a major role in the sex drive of women. These hormones as Helen Fisher says "get you out looking for anything". [hr] The Science of [b]Attraction[/b]
    This is the truly love-struck phase. When people fall in love they can think of nothing else. They might even lose their appetite and need less sleep, preferring to spend hours at a time daydreaming about their new lover.
    In the attraction stage, a group of neuro-transmitters called 'monoamines' play an important role: [ul][li][b]Dopamine[/b] - Also activated by cocaine and nicotine[/li][li][b]Norepinephrine[/b] - Otherwise known as adrenalin. Starts us sweating and gets the heart racing[/li][li][b]Serotonin[/b] - One of love's most important chemicals and one that may actually send us temporarily insane[/li][/ul]
    [hr] The Science of [b]Attachment[/b]
    This is what takes over after the attraction stage, if a relationship is going to last. People couldn't possibly stay in the attraction stage forever, otherwise they'd never get any work done!
    Attachment is a longer lasting commitment and is the bond that keeps couples together when they go on to have children. Important in this stage are two hormones released by the nervous system, which are thought to play a role in social attachments: [ul][li][b]Oxytocin[/b] - This is released by the hypothalamus gland during child birth and also helps the breast express milk. It helps cement the strong bond between mother and child. It is also released by both sexes during orgasm and it is thought that it promotes bonding when adults are intimate. The theory goes that the more sex a couple has, the deeper their bond becomes[/li][li][b]Vasopressin[/b] - Another important chemical in the long-term commitment stage. It is an important controller of the kidney and its role in long-term relationships was discovered when scientists looked at the prairie vole[/li][/ul]
    Source [link=http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/hottopics/love/index.shtml]BBC science[/link] [hr]

    The chemicals identified above illustrate with "tangible" evidence that the emotion of love does indeed exist. Therefore, the presence of love [i]is[/i], is in fact not only tangible itself, but is documentable scientifically.


    EDIT: [i][color=slateblue]Is it too late to specify that I'm referring to emotions in terms of feelings only, and not necessarily the scientific/physiological depictions of an emotional process?[/i][/color]

    The above identifies how the feelings come about using tangible proof.







     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.