Interesting discussion can be had on what makes us believe, and it's bound not to end in that there actually IS something, but some sort of evolutionary adaption that casues us to create, or need, or require, religion.
Source please
Source please
Try this experiment .... Punch yourself in the nose and see if it never actually gets there.
I said see......you said it would never quite get there.
Happy now
I said see......you said it would never quite get there.
Happy now
:Excuse me? Did you say "facts" How interesting. Which facts would these be Jono? Why is it that your "facts" if they are so clear and decisive as to prove the existance of your imaginary friend are not believed by 2/3 rds of the rest of us. Or do we simply the lack your insight? Cough*indoctrination* cough.
Of course this is where we differ greatly. You think religion is a subjective topic and I think it is an absolute one. Subjective difference of opinion would be me saying that the market has bottomed and you saying no I think it still has more to go down. Absolute is me saying "The sky is blue" and you saying "No it's pink with purple spots." "Just look up it's blue" "No Sorry you're wrong, it's pink with purple spots I have the facts" "Look if you just examine the evidence in front of you and look up you can see I'm not making it up. the sky really is blue" "Pink and Purple!!" "Why don't you just look up?" "no no I'm happy staring at my belly button"I hope that ASFers don't think that people holding alternative opinions, beliefs, etc to them think that they are jerks. I certainly don't think you are a jerk, just that you think differently to me
I try not to leadeth you into temptation
Fact? hey there's that word again without any supporting evidence whatsoever. Fact and belief are different. I may believe that an invisible pink Unicorn named Betsy skates around my house. My belief is independant of the facts. Now I'm sure you've heard your Mommy say something along these lines. "If 33% of the worlds population named johnny decided to jump off a bridge, do you think that is a good idea? Peer pressure as an argument? Ahuh yeah that's a convincing argument. Here have some heroin all the cool kids are doing it.
And if you say that 50 million times you'll REALLY believe it. Of course it could also mean that all those people believe something that is independant of the facts. But hey hand over the dessicated Tiger penis as a cure for a flagging libido will you. A Billion Chinese people can't be wrong, surely there must be something in it. **** now I did the trite thing.
No first cause is a gap and a logical trap. Because was was the cause of the first cause? Oh darn. What was the cause of the first cause that caused the first cause? Blast. Who caused the first cause that caused the first cause and caused the first cause? Damn I think I have too many causes there. If all that flew by a little fast, go think about it for a while, I mean seriously, how can a first cause just appear? DARN IT that damn trite thing again.
Wait so you read about ERV's and THAT was the question you came up with? Hmm, Well if you look at ALL viruses where do you think they come from? Surely a benevolent and loving imaginary friend wouldn't create Aid's right. I mean what a vindictive sod if he did right?
So yep, I'm filling my gap with ... hang on... it starts with G... yep, God. Sorry if I've disappointed Sir O
Damn that's good!! If it wasn't my anniversary and I didn't have to go and have dinner with my beautiful wife I would respond right now - as it is you'll have to wait.
Hang on, can't resist - I didn't say anything about proving the existence of God, just that facts point to there being a God, eg the existence of DNA. And don't tell me some ERV made DNA
jeez ..you want a postcard too?
Short answer below.
My last post on this off topic discussion.
How about emergent?
Why?
Nice assumption. Of course as you've said...it's untestable, so why is there an absolute in that statement? An "entity" (which evokes a consciousness and directive intelligence) must exist? You sure? You ABSOLUTELY sure? Coz you'd need to prove that and how exactly were you planning on proving that when you can't test for it?
That's some good babble their tradesim, but as I said to Jono... what caused the uncaused first cause? I mean what caused the cause of the uncaused first cause? Son-o-va-logical-trap.
I'm sorry. I thought that if you considered yourself sufficiently versed to debate philosophy you'd know the language.
It reduces to 'dependent' - prior conditions are necessary for an emergent state of affairs to come about.
Umm. Basic philosophy. If everything is dependent then no necessary and sufficient conditions exist to ground even one dependent entity let alone a vast set of them.
A conclusion is not an assumption. A conclusion is true if the argument is logically sound and the premises true.
Once again, I'm sorry, I thought you were versed in standard philosophical semantics given your absolute surety regarding your beliefs about first cause. An entity exists where some property obtains for a referent. Or, to put that a little more simply - Y exists because some positive property about Y exists. eg. "the apple" is an entity because all of the properties that belong to "apple-ness" belong to the object sitting on my bench. It does not imply consciousness or directive intelligence. Of course, if you believe the first cause must be intelligent that may go some distance in explaining why you so strenuously reject it.
You seem confused about a number of things here. I said all worldviews rest ultimately on untestable assumptions. Try researching Descarte's demon or the brains-in-vats problem. Try thinking about the self-referential nature of logical first principles. Contemplate the inescapability of physical laws in this universe for minds that belong to this universe in order to externally examine this world. In short, do some study on epistemology.
Ummm....think about what you've said. "What caused the uncaused first cause?"
'assumptions' and 'hypothesis' to carry the same meaning)) of evolution, the theory did not evolve to dispute or disprove anything. It's simply a stand alone theory which explains the mechanics of direct empirical evidence.No need to apologise!
Don't worry on my part Tradesim. I can keep up OK, of course simplification and examples always help with communication rather than complexity and jargon.
Wow sounds so simple and so logical. Of course if emergence were an intrinsic characteristic of energy, matter, dark matter and all the other wonderful bits that make up the universe yet to be found, does this remove the need for independence?
Let me continue to challenge this tradesim. How can we make that statement with any surety? How do we know that conditions for emergence didn't exist? Define "Conditions" Is it matter, sub atomic particles exotic energy states or some form of energy we are currently unaware of perhaps? It's such a simple thing to say that before there was anything there was nothing. So some "thing" must be outside of "everything" to cause everything to happen. And yet where did this "thing" (call it an entity if you must) emerge from itself? How can it be "uncaused"? How did the entity emerge with no prior conditions for it's emergence? It's infinity +1 and to make any absolute statements along the lines of "before everything there was nothing and whatever entity caused everything" is flawed. This is the trap that the bible bashers and God Botherers leap onto and claim direction and intelligence for. I'm quite happy to say I don't know because it's the only true position to hold.
the assumption is that an entity must exist. You assume that before everything there was nothing and whatever caused everything.
No I challange the standard philosophical semantics and as for absolute surety... I'm absolutely sure I don't need an imaginary friend.
It's not that I believe first cause as you put it is intelligent, that's the BS that the God botherers propaganda machine puts out. Sorry I arced up about the use of the word entity, to me it still evokes a personality
Heh I think it's funny that above, to paraphrase Descarte, I've asked you to throw out your barrel of apples and get go of your preconceived idea structure of "basic philosophy" eh?
yep i've thought about it..have you? infinity +1
Untestable assumptions? Could you expand a little on this?(I have assumed
And on the polemics ( Googled it
Hello and welcome to Aussie Stock Forums!
To gain full access you must register. Registration is free and takes only a few seconds to complete.
Already a member? Log in here.
