How Religion Nearly Shattered my Mind
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
05-08-2015, 08:42 AM
RE: How Religion Nearly Shattered my Mind
(04-08-2015 10:22 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  
(04-08-2015 09:34 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  You are correct, we should not assume an answer, but we can weigh specific evidence to come up with probable answers. For example, you wrote:

"I'm was not saying absolutes can evolve. I am saying how can we be sure they really are absolutes at all. You are thinking they certainly are but what you call absolutes can have cultural differences and evolved though viewing as societies have changed."

Is the law of noncontradiction something that has evolved over time? Is it only applicable in certain cultures across history? Is there any (concrete, not abstract) science that works when A and not-A are an equivalency?

You and I can dialogue starting with are there any absolutes that are always, well absolute, but any denial of absolute truth presupposes truth (you've pointed out a falsity) making truth's existence logically inescapable.

In other words, we know that true and false, right and wrong exist, so there is an absolute for us:

An individual thing can be either true or false but not both at the same time.

I think there may be a misreading of what am meaning or saying on this. You've twice seemed to veer the point of my stance on "evolving" & absolutes not as I was stating or intending to state.

Because for you to ask if I think this logical position evolved, it doesn't make sense unless you interpenetrated that differently than I intended. I don't think "absolutes" evolve. I was attempting to say to you, the things you had SPECIFICALLY called absolutes, I.E. Guilt/Murder in the posts before. That I don't think for certain are absolutes, That's why I said "what you call absolutes" to direct it toward the things you have previously stated are absolutes.(maybe I should of said those things by name or said the exact things you called or labeled, but I didn't seem to get the exact point across)

To answer it, I don't know if the law of non-contradiction evolved over time, I would say think no. But I would not be certain it is an absolute thing either as there are capable systems of logic that don't accept it is certain. I've seen claims of electronics/quantum fields/closed Theories(which sure is theory not application.) So it's still something is not certain because some law claims of that nature are hard to verify or find falsifiable. They stand in a hard to make a certain judge state.

I don't agree to your view that places statements in a black/white manner. Things seemingly may not be both true & false, but not true doesn't mean false. Just as Not Guilty doesn't mean Innocent. It can simply mean we don't have the information, lack the evidence necessary to conclude either, or maybe there is no discernible answer to questions at hand. Different forms of Logic's hold trues to a different degree sometimes. I would think for something to be absolute, it would have to apply to these forms of logic that demonstrate practical consistency. I think there are some tautologies that would apply, those I may take a closer to firm stance as absolutes, but I still don't proclaim to Know they are absolute.

Denial is, but I am not in a position that states I deny absolute truth. To me it is an Unknown/I don't know/perhaps not stance. It is not a position that presupposes truth. I don't proclaim to have truth or know if anyone has or can understand truth.

Are you sure no one can understand truth? Because you seem certain it is truthful that no one can understand truth. Are you absolutely sure no one can understand truth or are you somewhat sure?

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-08-2015, 08:44 AM
RE: How Religion Nearly Shattered my Mind
(04-08-2015 11:54 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(04-08-2015 09:30 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Sorry, I'll correct:

The universe's origins and many of its current facets show multiple elements of design including precision, order, sustainability and the ability to generate anthropic principles supporting life on Earth.

It is your opinion that there is evidence of design, but there is nothing to support that notion.

And what does " the ability to generate anthropic principles supporting life on Earth" even mean?

It is a wholly justifiable and correct position that the universe supports life on Earth by design. A number of systems are in place to allow us to live on Earth. The system shows evidence of design. Good "anthropic principle" or "anthropic principles of cosmology" as you are unaware of this term.

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-08-2015, 05:48 PM
RE: How Religion Nearly Shattered my Mind
(05-08-2015 08:44 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(04-08-2015 11:54 AM)Chas Wrote:  It is your opinion that there is evidence of design, but there is nothing to support that notion.

And what does " the ability to generate anthropic principles supporting life on Earth" even mean?

It is a wholly justifiable and correct position that the universe supports life on Earth by design. A number of systems are in place to allow us to live on Earth. The system shows evidence of design. Good "anthropic principle" or "anthropic principles of cosmology" as you are unaware of this term.

No, what does "generate anthropic principles" mean? Those are English words, but they don't make sense used in that combination.

And it is not "a wholly justifiable and correct position" as it assumes that humans are meant to be here.

You have the cart before the horse. If the conditions were different, something different would be here.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
06-08-2015, 10:06 AM
RE: How Religion Nearly Shattered my Mind
(05-08-2015 05:48 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(05-08-2015 08:44 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  It is a wholly justifiable and correct position that the universe supports life on Earth by design. A number of systems are in place to allow us to live on Earth. The system shows evidence of design. Good "anthropic principle" or "anthropic principles of cosmology" as you are unaware of this term.

No, what does "generate anthropic principles" mean? Those are English words, but they don't make sense used in that combination.

And it is not "a wholly justifiable and correct position" as it assumes that humans are meant to be here.

You have the cart before the horse. If the conditions were different, something different would be here.

Not at all. Humans are here and can observe the patterns of chance vs. design and so on. The statistical improbability and etc.

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-08-2015, 12:57 PM
RE: How Religion Nearly Shattered my Mind
(06-08-2015 10:06 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(05-08-2015 05:48 PM)Chas Wrote:  No, what does "generate anthropic principles" mean? Those are English words, but they don't make sense used in that combination.

And it is not "a wholly justifiable and correct position" as it assumes that humans are meant to be here.

You have the cart before the horse. If the conditions were different, something different would be here.

Not at all. Humans are here and can observe the patterns of chance vs. design and so on. The statistical improbability and etc.

Humans are here. So? It does not mean the universe had to be the way it is, just that the way it is allows for humans.

You have not yet given any evidence regarding pattern vs. design.
Please do - I can hardly contain my excited anticipation. Dodgy

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
06-08-2015, 05:57 PM
RE: How Religion Nearly Shattered my Mind
(05-08-2015 08:44 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  It is a wholly justifiable and correct position that the universe supports life on Earth by design.
The correct position is that
"the universe supports life on Earth"
the unsupported assumption is
"by design"
the reason why you have come to this conclusion is probably your implied assessment of
"appearance of design"
You think that "appearance of design" is equivalent to "by design".

(05-08-2015 08:44 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  A number of systems are in place to allow us to live on Earth.
This assumes a purpose, it assumes that "us" (presumably people) where meant to or destined to exist.
It's a very self centered (human centric) and egoistic viewpoint.
The 14 billion years of expansion and cooling of our universe where just precursors to the important entity "me". All of that happened for the sake of "me", without "me" all of that would have been irrelevant as there would be no point(purpose) to a universe without "me".
Either before "I" die or instantly after "I" die it would be expected that the universe will end because without me, there will no longer be any purpose for the universe to continue.
Why do you assume these things?
A: because you are here and you refuse to consider that a universe could have existed without you. You refuse to consider that "you" are an unlikely entity that lucked out against astronomical odds.
This is an argument from incredulity and it comes about because the size of our universe and the astronomical odds are far beyond our everyday or even lifetime experiences. This is why for many religious folk "personal experiences" are held to such a high reverence. This is supported many times over by the annecdotal stories in scripture and in the church experience. You are strongly conditioned to build an epistemology based on "personal experience" or personal annecdotes. The scientific method operates in the opposite way. It has measures to objectively discover findings despite statistical anamolies and personal bias.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 7 users Like Stevil's post
07-08-2015, 12:27 PM
RE: How Religion Nearly Shattered my Mind
(06-08-2015 05:57 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(05-08-2015 08:44 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  It is a wholly justifiable and correct position that the universe supports life on Earth by design.
The correct position is that
"the universe supports life on Earth"
the unsupported assumption is
"by design"
the reason why you have come to this conclusion is probably your implied assessment of
"appearance of design"
You think that "appearance of design" is equivalent to "by design".

(05-08-2015 08:44 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  A number of systems are in place to allow us to live on Earth.
This assumes a purpose, it assumes that "us" (presumably people) where meant to or destined to exist.
It's a very self centered (human centric) and egoistic viewpoint.
The 14 billion years of expansion and cooling of our universe where just precursors to the important entity "me". All of that happened for the sake of "me", without "me" all of that would have been irrelevant as there would be no point(purpose) to a universe without "me".
Either before "I" die or instantly after "I" die it would be expected that the universe will end because without me, there will no longer be any purpose for the universe to continue.
Why do you assume these things?
A: because you are here and you refuse to consider that a universe could have existed without you. You refuse to consider that "you" are an unlikely entity that lucked out against astronomical odds.
This is an argument from incredulity and it comes about because the size of our universe and the astronomical odds are far beyond our everyday or even lifetime experiences. This is why for many religious folk "personal experiences" are held to such a high reverence. This is supported many times over by the annecdotal stories in scripture and in the church experience. You are strongly conditioned to build an epistemology based on "personal experience" or personal annecdotes. The scientific method operates in the opposite way. It has measures to objectively discover findings despite statistical anamolies and personal bias.

It is neither anthrocentric nor an argument from incredulity (as you wrote) to know for a scientific fact that it is extremely unlikely to find a planet with the conditions for life we enjoy. Natural water cycles provide water. The right amounts of nitrogen and oxygen and magnetic and atmospheric shielding and so on.

The odds against the many combinations of factors that go toward life--whether you find such life to have evolved or have been created in the beginning--are astronomical, even "cosmic".

To deny this is to deny science--or are you unaware of the current search for planets that might support life?

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-08-2015, 12:41 PM
RE: How Religion Nearly Shattered my Mind
(07-08-2015 12:27 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(06-08-2015 05:57 PM)Stevil Wrote:  The correct position is that
"the universe supports life on Earth"
the unsupported assumption is
"by design"
the reason why you have come to this conclusion is probably your implied assessment of
"appearance of design"
You think that "appearance of design" is equivalent to "by design".

This assumes a purpose, it assumes that "us" (presumably people) where meant to or destined to exist.
It's a very self centered (human centric) and egoistic viewpoint.
The 14 billion years of expansion and cooling of our universe where just precursors to the important entity "me". All of that happened for the sake of "me", without "me" all of that would have been irrelevant as there would be no point(purpose) to a universe without "me".
Either before "I" die or instantly after "I" die it would be expected that the universe will end because without me, there will no longer be any purpose for the universe to continue.
Why do you assume these things?
A: because you are here and you refuse to consider that a universe could have existed without you. You refuse to consider that "you" are an unlikely entity that lucked out against astronomical odds.
This is an argument from incredulity and it comes about because the size of our universe and the astronomical odds are far beyond our everyday or even lifetime experiences. This is why for many religious folk "personal experiences" are held to such a high reverence. This is supported many times over by the annecdotal stories in scripture and in the church experience. You are strongly conditioned to build an epistemology based on "personal experience" or personal annecdotes. The scientific method operates in the opposite way. It has measures to objectively discover findings despite statistical anamolies and personal bias.

It is neither anthrocentric nor an argument from incredulity (as you wrote) to know for a scientific fact that it is extremely unlikely to find a planet with the conditions for life we enjoy. Natural water cycles provide water. The right amounts of nitrogen and oxygen and magnetic and atmospheric shielding and so on.

The odds against the many combinations of factors that go toward life--whether you find such life to have evolved or have been created in the beginning--are astronomical, even "cosmic".

To deny this is to deny science--or are you unaware of the current search for planets that might support life?

There are hundreds of billions of planets and the conditions on Earth are not the only conditions that make life possible.

You are ignorant.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-08-2015, 02:12 PM
RE: How Religion Nearly Shattered my Mind
(07-08-2015 12:41 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(07-08-2015 12:27 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  It is neither anthrocentric nor an argument from incredulity (as you wrote) to know for a scientific fact that it is extremely unlikely to find a planet with the conditions for life we enjoy. Natural water cycles provide water. The right amounts of nitrogen and oxygen and magnetic and atmospheric shielding and so on.

The odds against the many combinations of factors that go toward life--whether you find such life to have evolved or have been created in the beginning--are astronomical, even "cosmic".

To deny this is to deny science--or are you unaware of the current search for planets that might support life?

There are hundreds of billions of planets and the conditions on Earth are not the only conditions that make life possible.
10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars and likely much more planets.
More stars in the universe than grains of sand on all the beaches of Earth

There is no reason to assume that Earth is special.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-08-2015, 06:14 PM
RE: How Religion Nearly Shattered my Mind


Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Matt Finney's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: