Ante Up!

[inocente]

I think athiests and scientists are flawed in their reasoning because they leave out the most important question.

(I wouldn’t automatically include all scientists because science is not so much atheistic as naturalistic.)

In most cases where a woman has been told she may have breast cancer or a father is told his son is missing in action, the reaction would be to pray, make an offering, or just have a good cry. The atheistic refusal to get beyond ivory tower philosophizing instead of trying to understand us as a species is unscientific.

To spend time on CAF posting challenges would not be worth any rational entity’s time and energy, given the low probability of any reward other than the release of a few endorphins. No matter how hard some would have us overcome our nature as a species, we are as we are whether we like it or not, that much is scientific.

Look again at Moran as quoted in the OP. Were those words written by an emotional and slightly peeved human being, someone more than mere flesh and logic? Young Larry answered that question all by himself.

 

[wanstronian]

Hello,
I think you are mistaking the “why” I am talking about. I am not talking about the "why’ the world was created, I’m talking about the why things work the way they do. For instance, gravity: When science explains why gravity works, they are not truly explaining why it works, they are explaining how it works. The whole large body of mass pulling idea only explains how. I want to know WHY large bodies of mass have gravity. There are obviously laws at work, who or what made those laws. Who says that large bodies need to have gravity? Why when light reflects do we have the different colors. It can be explained how it happens, but why does it happen that way? Why does a light when its refracted have all of the colors of the rainbow? The only answer is “because that is how it is.” This isn’t circular at all. When I tell my 7 year old something, she always asks why. If I let her she will ask why all the way up to the point where I have to say, “because I said so”. Do yourself a favor and ask why anything is the way it is, and melt it all the way down. Every answer you get, ask “why is that the answer”. Eventually you will have to get to “because someone made it that way”.

Asking “why” assumes intent. Assuming intent assumes intelligent agency. Your clarification doesn’t actually change the substance of your argument one iota; and my response stands; asking “why” is circular reasoning in the absence of evidence for intelligent agency. You need to prove an intelligent agent before you can validly ask: “why?”

 

[davidv]

Asking “why” assumes intent. Assuming intent assumes intelligent agency. Your clarification doesn’t actually change the substance of your argument one iota; and my response stands; asking “why” is circular reasoning in the absence of evidence for intelligent agency. You need to prove an intelligent agent before you can validly ask: “why?”

You are your own proof of intelligent agency. Are you intelligent? An agent? Intelligent agency is self evident. Why is intent an assumption? I know of "intent’ in myself.

Reliance on a self evident truth is not circular reasoning.

 

[kumarei]

Hello,
I think you are mistaking the “why” I am talking about. I am not talking about the "why’ the world was created, I’m talking about the why things work the way they do. For instance, gravity: When science explains why gravity works, they are not truly explaining why it works, they are explaining how it works. The whole large body of mass pulling idea only explains how. I want to know WHY large bodies of mass have gravity. There are obviously laws at work, who or what made those laws. Who says that large bodies need to have gravity? Why when light reflects do we have the different colors. It can be explained how it happens, but why does it happen that way? Why does a light when its refracted have all of the colors of the rainbow? The only answer is “because that is how it is.” This isn’t circular at all. When I tell my 7 year old something, she always asks why. If I let her she will ask why all the way up to the point where I have to say, “because I said so”. Do yourself a favor and ask why anything is the way it is, and melt it all the way down. Every answer you get, ask “why is that the answer”. Eventually you will have to get to “because someone made it that way”.

Scientists are working on “why” gravity in the sense that you mean. It may be a long time until we know the answer, or we may never know the answer. If you’re uncomfortable with that, and need an answer now, I can see how you might choose to answer with God.

We know why there are different colors when light reflects. Wavelengths and the shape of receptors in our eyes. I’m not really sure what you’re trying to get at with this example.

Humans have extremely limited imaginations in general. There’s a reason why most attempts at futurism are horrible failures. Just because “because someone made it that way” is the only answer you can imagine, doesn’t mean that it’s the actual answer. Most likely, the real answer is something we haven’t even thought of yet, and won’t think of for a long time.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Scientists are working on “why” gravity in the sense that you mean.

No. You do not understand science.

Science is descriptive. It gives a description of the events and objects that are present and what they are doing when the phenomenon we call gravity is actual. Science tell us that gravity, when it exists, has a correlation to particular events and objects. These are the “functional causes”. Science describes the functional principles of nature. But Science cannot tell you why there is such a thing as gravity in the first place and why it becomes actual in respect of particular events and objects doing a particular thing. Science only tells you that there is gravity and it is actual in relation to certain things. In other-words, Science cannot tell you why there is such a thing as the “laws of physics” or why the universe as a whole has a certain finite quantity or quality. Science merely tells you that it does have these attributes. There is a difference between a functional explanation, and an efficient explanation. There are different levels of questions and explanations that can be applied to any object or phenomenon, and science does not exhaust all of them. Science only gives a minimal explanation of things, but this explanation only tells us how; it does not tell us why.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

yo!

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Wavelengths and the shape of receptors in our eyes.

That doesn’t tell us why at all. This only shows us that there is a correlation between things. Why do various colours exist as wavelengths and why do we perceive them because of a shape? You cannot use the laws of physics to explain why there is such a thing as the laws of physics and why they exist as they do. In principle that is not a question that the scientific method can answer, and thus neither can there possibly be a physics of the gaps that might explain it all one day. I can see how you being an atheist would want to believe that physics rules all, but you are sadly mistaken.

 

[kumarei]

I was giving a very abbreviated explanation. As far as how the wavelengths work, and how they’re converted into electrical signals that the brain can parse, those things are pretty well known. Exactly how the representation happens in the brain is something we’re still working on, but we have most of the other parts figured out.

That was why I was saying that I think gravity is a better example of what they were talking about. We don’t have a direct cause for gravity. We may never have a direct cause for gravity (although some people have posited that it may be due to the curvature of space).

I think that the idea you’re trying to get at is that eventually, we will get to something that we cannot investigate the cause of, either because of limitations inherent in our place in the universe, or because there is no cause of something.

I agree with you that this could happen, but I don’t agree that it would necessitate a god. First of all, it could be impossible for some reason that a true void could actually exist. It could be that the universe was created somewhere where things don’t require causes. It could be that a chain of universes has always existed. Unless we have a way to investigate these things, as well as other options that could be far outside of what we currently know, picking an option is hasty.

Even if science hits a wall, it doesn’t mean that God has been proved. Using God in this way just shifts the question to “Why did God do that?” instead of “What caused this?”, a question which simultaneously adds an entity to the equation and makes the question absolutely impossible to ever answer. It precludes further inquiry.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

I was giving a very abbreviated explanation. As far as how the wavelengths work, and how they’re converted into electrical signals that the brain can parse, those things are pretty well known.

That doesn’t tell us why at all. This only shows us that there is a correlation between things. Why do various colours exist as wavelengths and why do we perceive them because of a shape? You cannot use the laws of physics to explain why there is such a thing as the laws of physics and why they exist as they do. In principle that is not a question that the scientific method can answer, and thus neither can there possibly be a physics of the gaps that might explain it all one day. I can see how you being an atheist would want to believe that physics rules all, but you are sadly mistaken.

 

[wanstronian]

You are your own proof of intelligent agency. Are you intelligent? An agent? Intelligent agency is self evident. Why is intent an assumption? I know of "intent’ in myself.

Reliance on a self evident truth is not circular reasoning.

You’re missing the point. If you ask “why” (for what purpose) something is the way it is, then you’re presuming that someone specifically and intentionally made it that way. You can’t then use “why does gravity work” (for example, as JohnCS is doing) as an argument for the existence of God because simply by asking “why” you’re pre-supposing that God (or something similar) exists to have made the thing in question the way it is. Hence circular logic. To be precise, it’s the fallacy of “begging the question.”

 

[AntiTheist]

In most cases where a woman has been told she may have breast cancer or a father is told his son is missing in action, the reaction would be to pray, make an offering, or just have a good cry. The atheistic refusal to get beyond ivory tower philosophizing instead of trying to understand us as a species is unscientific. (emphasis added

Are you seriously suggesting that an atheist wouldn’t cry in such a situation?

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Are you seriously suggesting that an atheist wouldn’t cry in such a situation?

The question is why would you cry about a bag of chemicals?

 

[kumarei]

@MindOverMatter2

First off, the reason I didn’t address the question of “why” as in “what was the purpose” was that wanstronian had already answered that question, and JohnCS had said that it wasn’t what he meant. Since I only know of one other interpretation of why (“what is the cause”), my post was only intended to address that.

Also, if you look below the line that you quoted, you’ll see that I admitted that there may be things that science cannot find out, and addressed that point. In fact, I don’t even consider the tangent about colors to be relevant to the discussion.

The question is why would you cry about a bag of chemicals?

Because I have an emotion called love, and I have empathy, and I value human life. You seriously think that an atheist is incapable of crying for a relative? That we are emotionless robots? That is far from the truth.

 

[AntiTheist]

The question is why would you cry about a bag of chemicals?

Because this bag of chemicals is programmed to feel “sadness” when another bag of chemicals (which this bag of chemicals designates “a relative or a friend”) seems to be experiencing pain.

Emotions, by definition, are irrational. The fact that atheists feel emotions has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not we think we’re rationally justified to believe in gods.

 

[Windfish]

shivers

Your posts are so bleak, AntiTheist, that I could put them into a book and scare children. Just in time for Halloween, too.

 

[AntiTheist]

shivers

Your posts are so bleak, AntiTheist, that I could put them into a book and scare children. Just in time for Halloween, too.

I’m trying to think of a good title:

The Realistic Grinch Who Stole Your Stupid, Angsty Fantasy of a World that Runs on Your Feelings

Eh, it’s a little too long for a title. I’ll workshop it a bit more.

In all seriousness, realizing that emotions are just chemical reactions doesn’t make them feel any different. Sadness still feels sad, for example. Happiness and love still feel like happiness and love.

The only difference is that once you recognize emotions as things your brain does, it’s a lot harder to get fooled into thinking that the universe runs on them. This realization is a fundamental part of actual spiritual development, what is referred to in Eastern religions as “enlightenment.” As a result, you save yourself a lot of grief in the long run, and you can often avoid making some stupid mistakes.

 

[Windfish]

Touched a nerve, eh?

 

[Windfish]

How about this small tidbit for the thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=qbg_dhI4XCs

Makes for a great If ___, then ___ statement:

If this happened, atheists are wrong.

(btw, it happened)

 

[wanstronian]

How about this small tidbit for the thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=qbg_dhI4XCs

Makes for a great If ___, then ___ statement:

If this happened, atheists are wrong.

(btw, it happened)

If a man says stuff, atheists are wrong? What about if an Islamic ‘miracle’ occurs - does that make Christians wrong?

In any event, this is great news - we can finally prove the validity of a theistic claim. What happened when they repeated the experiment under controlled conditions? In which journal is the paper published?

 

[wanstronian]

How about this small tidbit for the thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=qbg_dhI4XCs

Makes for a great If ___, then ___ statement:

If this happened, atheists are wrong.

(btw, it happened)

If a man says stuff, atheists are wrong? What about if an Islamic ‘miracle’ occurs - does that make Christians wrong?

In any event, this is great news - we can finally prove the validity of a theistic claim. What happened when they repeated the experiment under controlled conditions? In which journal is the paper published?