so the question is "why"

[ollagram88]

i'm always amazed at how much science has accomplished in understanding our universe.

the one thing that i never could get an answer to, however, is WHY - why does does this universe exist? (or universes, depending on what you fancy).

i'm looking at the big picture here. one might ask, why are we here? well, billions of years of moving particles, evolution, ideal conditions, and the constants that make life possible tell us how we got here, and by that alone, the question of why can be considered irrelevant.

i'm not interested in the how, however, and it doesn't even have to concern life (because as science would like to tell us, we're pretty insignificant). i'm not asking how the universe functions. i don't care that it's possible for non-carbon based lifeforms to exist provided our universe was fine-tuned differently.

i'm asking WHY. why we have physical laws. why there exists matter. why the big bang(s) had to occur. why all that is, is?

is science just not there yet? if so, what can we guess based on our current knowledge? what does science and philosophy have to say about this? i don't want to insert God if God is not necessary to answer this question.

[ollagram88]

Earth-centered would be "geocentric". Human-centric is obviously, human-centered. But any thought from humans is likely to be only from a human perspective. Being nothing other than human, how are we to hold the perspective of a non-human? I believe we can hold any of innumerable human perspectives, but not any non-human perspectives.

as i said earlier then, our definitions are different. thinking that the stars revolve around the earth is more than just earth-centric, it's believing the earth is special because mankind is special and we in habit the planet, therefore the stars revolve around the earth. it is then it becomes human-centric.

We have determined much about the universe and likely have far more to figure out. However, having reached a point where we can even conceive of an "answer to everything", it would appear ignorant to assume there is a God, yet to be discovered via science. What science continually demonstrates is that the universe operates on cold, hard, indifferent principles, many of which can be modeled with a significant degree of accuracy, via mathematics.

seems to be a lot of hubris amongst scientists and intellectuals to think they are close to the key of unlocking "everything." there's reputable work out there to show that we know far less than science would like to portray and that much of science can be a commitment of faith. to think OUR times is at the point of unlocking the mysteries of life seems to be jumping the gun a bit, and if you ask me, is falling victim to a "human-centric perspective" as if we are special when in reality, it is likely that there will be generations to come who will know more than we ever will at the rate our knowledge-base and technology increases.

now i'm not saying that we aren't close to that point. if scientists can prove me wrong by providing that answer, by all means bring it. i'd love to hear that answer of everything myself

And yet one should consider that a "blank file, without any code", still contains the same kind of physical matter and electro-magnetic information as a file containing data. In fact, the arrangement of flux we can convert to data is actually more highly ordered than a "blank file". Since order is easier for us to understand, perhaps it is the file containing data which is less complex.

Again, "complex" tells us about the capacity of the observer to understand what he is observing. It tells us little (if anything), about what he observes.

so what math is there to understand from a blank file compared to the math in the software for microsoft word? it doesn't matter that the same kind of physical matter exists for both programs. in a materialist world that scientists claim, matter is ALL that exists. therefore, ideas should be just a bunch of labels "created" by neurons in our brain. i think you're dodging the question by your reductionist approach.

Do we really "create" ideas, or do we link together what we have observed in ways which explain more fully, those things we see? I'll grant you that humans engage in the processing of input and sometimes, this results in extensions to human understanding. But the idea of "creating" anything tends not to hold much merit upon close examination.

which is why i put "create" in quotes and also coupled the term with the word "apply."

Speaking from a strictly human-centric perspective, then there is a level of aesthetic appeal which is evolutionary and in most cases, innate. But people can also become fascinated with non-symmetry and find beauty within it, even in faces. If we assume the majority is the natural model, then aesthetics are partially programmed through genetics. But in that some individuals, often those who seek a greater understanding of visual appeal, can break such boundaries, I don't know that we can genuinely find a true logical basis.

but you admit that there is some sort of "criteria," i.e., it is not PURELY subjective. which was the only point i was trying to make. like i said, if similar techniques are being used around the world in art, is art completely subjective or is there at least SOME consistency in ideas?

RE: complexity and amazement

now i totally understand your perspective on how as we begin to understand something, our amazement can decrease. however, i still contest that the level of amazement is soley dependent on our grasp of the complexity. now it's my turn

you are a programmer, i am a dancer, more specificaly what you would call a "b-boy". now, b-boying (or breakdancing if you will) was a cultural phenomenon that impressed people for its acrobatic and dynamic movement.



now whether that amazes you or not is a matter of much subjectivity, although i can attest to experience (both witnessing and my own) in b-boying that the public will be very impressed by what a b-boy does. but i can watch this video (and witness b-boying through any other video or in person) and continue to be amazed, and be MORE amazed the more i understand the dance. there are complexities to the dance you could never possibly understand until you've been doing the dance for years, and your amazement to the dance only increases with understanding as you begin to understand the intricacies of the dance.

i can also use an example from this forum. someone created a thread where atheists mostly agreed that their understanding of the universe and how it works and how it came to be allows THEM to consider it with MORE amazement than a theist who simply attributes "God" as the answer to everything. if i ever find the thread i will post it here.

and so once again, i disagree that complexity and amazement are related ONLY by ability to understand.

i have skipped the consciousness issues because i have to go to work i'll get back to it.

[ken1burton]

Beastt.

So now you want to blame man for creating God. But if that were the case, How can someone who evolved be responsible for what they do? Or think?

Now concerning the answers which make sense, That is according to you. Correct?

I think you ought to make a better human, I am sure you will find a way to give them life. After all, The God concept is a poor designer, So you have to be better. You might get a few people mad at you, all the Dentists out of work, The Medical profession, I assume they will all be nice humans, so we will not need law enforcement, Etc.

And who will need an undertaker? After your design hits the market. You building these from Scratch, or just going to alter the DNA?

Now where would I get an idea that Science has a information gap? I guess I just make a wild guess. But as you think I evolved, I guess I evolved with a wild imagination. Not quite wild or gullible enough to buy what you are selling.

What is the (“WE� find science to be correct and theism to be wrong.) Did you evolve with multiple personalities, or multi-headed? That you speak that way?

I think Human life does pretty good considering what is going on from the point of conception, Till a Baby is born. There are a lot of problems, and many are caused by humans who do not care enough about that baby growing inside.

Looking at a single point and saying was it a Design problem, or evolution? Sorry, But there are thousands of things going on from Conception to birth, and even after. Things evolution could never do.

You seem to be bothered by deaths? And problems mankind has like tooth decay. Many things can take the life of a baby. We need to care for them. No guarantee. Along with that God is a belief in Eternal life. That is the Baby beating you Home, But only getting there, first. We will get there in due time.

God created an Earthly body, But that is what you are complaining about, Our EARTHLY body. I am sure our Heavenly body also has a throat designed the same way. You can sing? Can’t you?

Give science another 50 years, But there is a problem. Atheists will be almost non existent by then. That God you do not believe in has a timetable. And it has a time for Israel to see Jesus is the Messiah, and to bring almost the whole human race into seeing that as truth.

That includes the Scientists, So maybe them might see a lot better in fifty years.

You mean my arguments have to meet YOUR VIEW of merit or credibility? The question is WHY? I see your argument as Silly, and maybe the silliest of them all. “He’s perfect, We are not perfect, so He could not make a non-perfect person� etc.

Science has aptly explained? You mean by seeing how God constructed things, and how they function, and calling it Natural? How many other planets are there, like this one? The Element Oxygen is very common on earth, Running into that Hydrogen gas cloud in Space must have caused quite a blaze. All that burning Hydrogen producing H2O. Science figure that one out yet?

Premature death? Didn’t you know that the Shadow of death starts at Conception also. There is no such thing as not old enough to die once you are conceived. Maybe life after death will EVOLVE? Until then, I guess we need God.

In your way of thinking, it would be Carrot King instead of Burger King. Maybe God knew that those animals would provide food in a lot of areas and times when the Vegies were not available. A cow is just a walking vegie field ready for the harvest.

Eskimos do not like to plow and sow seeds anyway. Better to find something that migrated north. Lots of Blubber to chew on.

Also. As far as a computer programer, I had tinker toys when I was a child, They already had form to fit the pieces together, Same as DOS language. Just take the pieces and see what you can build with them.

Ken

[daedalus 2.0]

Beastt.

So now you want to blame man for creating God. But if that were the case, How can someone who evolved be responsible for what they do? Or think?

Ken

Why not?

[ken1burton]

Daedalus.

I thought you used the Ignore button?

Do we blame a fish for eating another fish, or accept it as the way they are? With no God, we have No real rules. Just ones we make for those under our control.

Countries have followed being an atheist. Usually with blood baths. Why not? If mankind just evolved, What do we owe each other? Really?

Ken

[Thought Criminal]

Daedalus.

I thought you used the Ignore button?

Do we blame a fish for eating another fish, or accept it as the way they are? With no God, we have No real rules. Just ones we make for those under our control.

Countries have followed being an atheist. Usually with blood baths. Why not? If mankind just evolved, What do we owe each other? Really?

Ken

This is the second time today I've heard this absurd claim. Do you really believe atheists are immoral?

TC

[ken1burton]

Thought Criminal.

Do I think that Atheists are immoral? Not really a valid question. They can be, or they might not be. It is not like we have not seen countries which do not accept God.

Christians can not really follow Christ and accept another person as having no value. Babies as being ok to abort. Etc. But an understanding that all are created in the image of God, All special in His sight.

An Atheist on the other hand, has no reason to believe a human or a fish are different, Both evolved. Just chance life for either of them. With no God, There are no rules. Survival for a fish is to eat it’s young. Many do, and humans are just other creatures which evolved. So cook your grandmother.

I do not remember a lot of Atheists moving to Russia or China so they could be in a God-less country (or at least that is the way their government would have liked to have it.)

The Differences between Christians and Atheists are quite plain to see in this world. Either in lives, or in control of other’s lives. And far too many Atheists have no value for other human lives.

I am saying those who are followers of Christ, not saying Christian and not really being one. Like the Protestants and Catholics who were killing each other in Ireland, Those doing that were not following Jesus at all. Nor the ones forcing Christianity (their view) upon others, Some with convert or die.

Ken

Absurd claim? Go and dig up some of the mass graves. Genocide is not a concept taught by Christ.

[Thought Criminal]

Thought Criminal.

Do I think that Atheists are immoral? Not really a valid question. They can be, or they might not be. It is not like we have not seen countries which do not accept God.

It's an entirely valid question, given that you claim religion as the basis for morality.

Christians can not really follow Christ and accept another person as having no value. Babies as being ok to abort. Etc. But an understanding that all are created in the image of God, All special in His sight.

This is the True Scotsman Fallacy. As for abortion, no babies are involved in the process, and the only person is the woman.

An Atheist on the other hand, has no reason to believe a human or a fish are different, Both evolved. Just chance life for either of them. With no God, There are no rules. Survival for a fish is to eat it’s young. Many do, and humans are just other creatures which evolved. So cook your grandmother.

All life evolved, but not all life evolved into moral agents capable of considering whether it's right to eat grandma. And, for the record, it very rarely is.

I do not remember a lot of Atheists moving to Russia or China so they could be in a God-less country (or at least that is the way their government would have liked to have it.)

Russia, by which you mean the Soviet Union, might have been officially atheistic, but it merely substituted communism as the state religion. More to the point, I would want to live in a country whose laws embody humanism, which would make it necessarily secular.

The Differences between Christians and Atheists are quite plain to see in this world. Either in lives, or in control of other’s lives. And far too many Atheists have no value for other human lives.

First you say it's an unfair question, then you give a ridiculous answer anyhow. If we put aside the special pleading of the True Scotsman fallacy, the world is very clearly full of moral atheists, immoral theists, immoral atheists and moral theists. It does not appear that theism, as such, indicates morality, nor a lack of theism indicates immorality. As it happens, theists are overrepresented in prisons and underrepresented among the ranks of the educated; draw your own conclusions.

I am saying those who are followers of Christ, not saying Christian and not really being one. Like the Protestants and Catholics who were killing each other in Ireland, Those doing that were not following Jesus at all. Nor the ones forcing Christianity (their view) upon others, Some with convert or die.

Yes, and no true Scotsman eats oats.

Absurd claim? Go and dig up some of the mass graves. Genocide is not a concept taught by Christ.

Apparently, it's one learned by Christians. Those mass graves weren't all dug by atheists, I assure you.

TC

[ken1burton]

Thought Criminal.

Do you see the problem with Atheists? No babies are involved in the process of an abortion. Like I said, some Atheists have no value for other Human lives. Some of those babies were already outside the Womb. Had the cord been cut, the Doctor (butcher) would have been charged with murder.

If someone walked into a hospital nursery and killed a new born child, The World would scream, But a few minutes earlier in the labor room, it is OK? And you have a problem with me thinking an Atheist has no morality? You just showed your’s.

As far as the “all life evolved�. A lot of Atheists are now separating evolved from life starting. Most people can see life changes from generation to generation. But life starting all on it’s own was also part of the “Evolution� Concept years ago. Life did not Evolve from non-life materials.

Communism is not an issue here. It does not fall under a belief in God, or a belief there is no God. It is a substitute for nothing being debated here. Russia did not have a state religion called Communism.

Ken

As far as you ASSURING me, Keep your assurances. Like your view of the unborn, Your assurances have no value as I see it.

[Thought Criminal]

Thought Criminal.

Do you see the problem with Atheists? No babies are involved in the process of an abortion. Like I said, some Atheists have no value for other Human lives. Some of those babies were already outside the Womb. Had the cord been cut, the Doctor (butcher) would have been charged with murder.

Yes, some theists care nothing for the human lives of women, instead pretending to care more for the potential rights of potential people.

In any case, I was entirely correct about abortions not involving babies. They are almost always of embryos and only rarely fetuses. Of those fetuses, all but a few medical emergencies are of early, clearly nonviable ones.

Now that we got the basic facts out of the way, let's take a moment to recognize that not all theists think so little of women that they'd take away the element of choice in their pregnancy, forcing them against their will to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term. Christianity doesn't entail extreme conservatism. Being pro-choice is entirely consistent with being Christian, as well as with being, in the genuine sense, both anti-abortion and pro-life.

So, in summary, don't even pretend that your anti-woman, anti-choice stance gives you the moral high ground. Tossing around emotionalistic, accusatory hyperbole only make you look like an extremist. Wait, did I say "look'?

If someone walked into a hospital nursery and killed a new born child, The World would scream, But a few minutes earlier in the labor room, it is OK? And you have a problem with me thinking an Atheist has no morality? You just showed your’s.

I do not support the abortion of viable fetuses except in extreme circumstances, such as to protect the life of the woman. So, in fact, not only are you equivocating between pro-choice and atheism, you're attacking a straw man position.

As far as the “all life evolved�. A lot of Atheists are now separating evolved from life starting. Most people can see life changes from generation to generation. But life starting all on it’s own was also part of the “Evolution� Concept years ago. Life did not Evolve from non-life materials.

As a matter of fact, no, they're not. This whole macro/micro distinction is touted mostly by Creationists. Real scientists barely mention it, and even then, evolution at the level of speciation and above is in no doubt.

Life forming from non-life is called abiogenesis, and it works off the same principle of natural selection that powers evolution, even if it is technically a distinct subject. Once again, it is only the anti-science religionists who deny it.

Communism is not an issue here. It does not fall under a belief in God, or a belief there is no God. It is a substitute for nothing being debated here. Russia did not have a state religion called Communism.

Communism in the USSR was a totalizing state religion, taken on as much faith as your Christianity.

As far as you ASSURING me, Keep your assurances. Like your view of the unborn, Your assurances have no value as I see it.

Calling a fetus an unborn baby is like calling a person an unkilled corpse. It is an intentional act of dishonesty, seeking to equate the actual with the potential. Potential people have only potential rights, just as much as actual people are not reduced to the rights of corpses.

I assure you that your religiously-based ethical system is morally bankrupt due to its rubber-stamping of paleoconservative misogyny. You can take that to the bank.

TC

[JoeyKnothead]

Thought Criminal.

Do you see the problem with Atheists? No babies are involved in the process of an abortion. Like I said, some Atheists have no value for other Human lives. Some of those babies were already outside the Womb. Had the cord been cut, the Doctor (butcher) would have been charged with murder.

If someone walked into a hospital nursery and killed a new born child, The World would scream, But a few minutes earlier in the labor room, it is OK? And you have a problem with me thinking an Atheist has no morality? You just showed your’s.

As far as the “all life evolved�. A lot of Atheists are now separating evolved from life starting. Most people can see life changes from generation to generation. But life starting all on it’s own was also part of the “Evolution� Concept years ago. Life did not Evolve from non-life materials.

Communism is not an issue here. It does not fall under a belief in God, or a belief there is no God. It is a substitute for nothing being debated here. Russia did not have a state religion called Communism.

Ken

As far as you ASSURING me, Keep your assurances. Like your view of the unborn, Your assurances have no value as I see it.

This atheist values ALL human life. He also values the decision a woman makes in regards to the abortion issue. He also understands that abortion will always be a part of the human condition, and outlawing it will only increase harm to people.

How do you assist in areas of adoption? Have you given of your money? Your time? Your home? How many children have you adopted? How many times have you sought out expectant mothers in need, and offered to raise that child for them?

Do you think that outlawing abortion will not send women back to the alleys, and the unclean rooms to get abortions? Do you think you know more about that woman's condition than she does? I'm curious, from what school did you get your medical degree? A medical ethics degree? Or did you get a psychology degree? Sociology degree? Or do you have a religious degree? A degree in dentistry?

Or perhaps you're just another person reading a book about something wholly different than abortion. A book that uses unproven claims that you think gives you special insight into women's reproductive issues? A book that has so divided, confounded, and confused society for close to two centuries?

Since your slam at evolution is off topic, I won't bother refuting it here.