Can science REALLY explain Reality?

[Sair]

So would you say that those who know of science but are not, shall we say, “cutting edge” in their knowledge/skill level, are more likely to insist that there are “comfortable” boundaries – even as they cheer on their own heroes who not only see past those boundaries but go through them? It seems the BIG achievers all insist there is more out there that we cannot see, and they hint around that we may never see them. But that doesn’t sell to those who have been brainwashed by academia, society, bad religion, etc, into thinking everything is in a tidy little package and certified by some certifying agency, or it doesn’t exist. It’s like, why do these leaders say these things? Maybe it’s to encourage others to open their minds, rather than cluck about how weird they are compared to us. Why don’t we want to hear them? I guess we don’t like it when somebody other than the captain is rocking the boat.

Alan

This, and the post to which it is responding, raise some interesting ideas. Humans are, very often, wary of change to the comfortable and familiar environments - both intellectual and external - we are used to.

However, I wonder how much this takes into account such things as the rate of technological change over the past century or so, and how much this has expanded our collective appreciation of possibility? I mean, it was really only just over a century or so ago that it was believed no man-made machine heavier than air could ever achieve flight.

There will always be a few individuals who will push the limits of what is considered accepted knowledge or “received wisdom”. It’s very likely that they will meet with derision - as they have, historically - until their ideas are demonstrated to a sufficient extent as to become widely accepted - again, as demonstrable ideas have been, historically.

Having said that, it’s interesting to note that the general acceptance of religious and supernatural ideas has either remained at a plateau or actually declined, since the growth and manifest successes of methodological naturalism. My own take on this is that most supernatural ideas are eventually defeated by the need for demonstration in order to achieve and maintain widespread acceptance. There will always be a few individuals who accept the efficacy of psychic powers, horoscope/palm/tarot readings; or the truth of demonic possession or hauntings and so on - and this acceptance will almost certainly be based on some personal experience that seems to be (allowing for wishful thinking) explained by such phenomena. But should everyone feel compelled to accept that these are the real deal? I’d be inclined to think that would be a similar demand to me expecting the whole world to adore my husband, just because I do!

Is our epistemological reliance upon a certain level of objective demonstration to be considered a flaw in our ability to perceive and appreciate reality?

 

[inocente]

They don’t exist. No one here has ever told you that you were going to hell.

I’m not about to chance a rumpus by naming posters to satisfy your sudden pedantic one-sided demand for forensic standards of proof about a passing remark.

*I already did, you didn’t want to follow up apparently. I’ve posted this info over and over. It’s right online for anyone who wants to find out the facts and has the stones to accept it. That doesn’t include sair or you, in my experience. *

Following your capricious standards, I won’t believe you unless you link every occasion where you posted that info, link all the posts who didn’t accept it, and link all the posts who did.

Look, we end up in the same place in every thread. The science is done, has been done, has been repeated, has been published. It ain’t some big secret. You don’t want to know because it will disturb your quaint atheist reality with the nice neat paradigms that actually don’t exist. I’ve already left sufficient links. You and sair ignore them.

Following your capricious standards, I won’t believe unless you link every thread where we have ended in the same place and every post where you left links to this “science”.

I’m still a Baptist, remember it’s one of the religions you disrespected earlier? Did you put me in hell yet?

*Fine, be comfortable. Just stop claiming the objective highground when what you actually display is intellectual cowardice. *

You appear to think intellectual courage is insulting others. Please don’t post to me ever again, go find someone else to rant at.

 

[Julia_Mae]

I’m not about to chance a rumpus by naming posters to satisfy your sudden pedantic one-sided demand for forensic standards of proof about a passing remark.

You made a statement of fact that was not a fact. Just own up. This is your default position re: people of faith: we are dismissed because…wait for it…

I’m still a Baptist, remember it’s one of the religions you disrespected earlier? Did you put me in hell yet?

… everyone tells you that you will burn in hell!!! Except they don’t.

I “disrespected” Baptists? Nah. You are a Baptist? Srsly? Say this please: Jesus Christ is my Lord and my God and I believe in the the Resurrection and eternal life. That’s what Baptists believe. Or perhaps you meant you were baptised as a child by a Baptist preacher and you don’t believe any of that. Which would make you not a Baptist, of course.

Following your capricious standards, I won’t believe you unless you link every occasion where you posted that info, link all the posts who didn’t accept it, and link all the posts who did.

Like I said: I will when you do. So, either admit you simply made up what you said with no basis in fact or admit you don’t want the information.

Following your capricious standards, I won’t believe unless you link every thread where we have ended in the same place and every post where you left links to this “science”.

You know, you can say “your capricious standards” as much as you want, won’t make them exist. Now let’s note something here. You say you haven’t ever found any science about these issues, so you have never been to any site I have or would link, read any article in any journal, and yet, you have put the word science in quotes, as if, any person regardless of qualifications who has done research into what you might term supernatural phenomena is not doing science. Can’t exist.

So, you have already made up your mind what you will believe absent any information at all, irregardless of the facts that exist or may come to light.

You appear to think intellectual courage is insulting others. Please don’t post to me ever again, go find someone else to rant at.

I am neither ranting nor insulting you. And until they ban me, which could happen at any moment, of course, I’ll probably be posting in response to you when I have something to add.

 

[JDaniel]

Considering that from a naturalistic perspective, subatomic particles, atoms, molecules, bacteria and many other things smaller and less capable than humans have the power to be causal (and by the way, the bacterial cells contained within our bodies actually outnumber the human cells; and what’s more, we couldn’t function without those bacterial cells - just to throw that out there) I don’t know that our powers of causality, as such, are anything that set us above other organisms or natural forces. Just saying…

Sair:

It would seem that your have a classic naturalist conception of physical stuff. I’m going to go through it step by step - and you can help (if you will):

(1) What is a point?

(2) What is a “point particle?”

STOP (for now.)

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

The simplest definition is “that which exists”.

Sair:

Next question: how do we know “that which exists” really exists? (IOW, what makes “that which exists” fully and without further question completely intelligible?)

My contention is that it’s possible to know the difference, and that mind-independent evidence is the key to discerning this difference.

OK: “mind-independent evidence” - such as?

My experience of Catholicism involved being raised from earliest infancy to believe that god exists.

Am I to understand that you were once Catholic?

Why is it irrelevant to cite alternative conceptions of god when discussing the possibility of demonstrating whether such entities actually exist?

Nothing really. You’re just getting ahead of ourselves.

This is where the difference between naturalism and supernaturalism - bottom-up as opposed to top-down - comes into effect. Naturalists generally don’t take it as a given that the forms of reality as we experience it are dictated by pure, platonic forms that lie in some realm of reality beyond our ability to detect; the alternative hypothesis is that form arises from the interaction of natural matter and forces.

Then you disbelieve in quantum physics, and perhaps quantum mechanics? (I think you are assuming what I haven’t proposed. And, I’m not going to go there, BTW.)

But if we’re talking about a non-dimensional, purposeless, non-directed entity, then a supernatural god seems to fit that description.

If you would read what I wrote you’d see that I was not talking about that. (I was talking about quantum particles: fermions, bosons, and quarks, for example.)

You have as good as admitted that your god is irrelevant to our present existence, even if it exists in its own right - or, in its initial creative capacity, is indistinguishable from such particles and/or forces as are theorised to have existed before the birth of the known universe.

Not even close.

And of course the chances of the universe existing may be minute. But it only had to happen once

And, that’s your counter argument? “It only had to happen once?” Out of impossible odds? But, it’s not “once” as you suggest. It’s a small plethora of “once’s!” But, you insist, “It only had to happen once in each one of those scenarios!”

• from a number of possibilities we cannot discern - just as the origination of life only had to happen once, in 13.7 (or so) billion years, in order for us to be here contemplating it. The chances of any individual winning a lottery are minute, but it still happens.

Really? That’s all it took? (Remember, I was a biologist and a biology teacher, in my past life.)

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

Sair:

It would seem that you have a classic naturalist conception of physical stuff. I’m going to go through it step by step - and you can help (if you will):

(1) What is a point?

(2) What is a “point particle?”

STOP (for now.)

God bless,
jd

 

[tonyrey]

T Tonyrey has spent a large part of his life, in these forums, attempting to make it clear to everyone that non-dimensional, purposeless, non-directed exigencies cannot do the things that you, and others, like to accuse them of doing. The chances of a life making/sustaining universe happening by itself are so many orders of magnitude greater than the acceptance of “God,” that I have no choice but to concede to its impossibility.

This is where the difference between naturalism and supernaturalism - bottom-up as opposed to top-down - comes into effect. Naturalists generally don’t take it as a given that the forms of reality as we experience it are dictated by pure, platonic forms that lie in some realm of reality beyond our ability to detect; the alternative hypothesis is that form arises from the interaction of natural matter and forces.
From one extreme to the other! To be accurate, materialists believe form arises accidentally from the interaction of natural matter and forces .

But if we’re talking about a non-dimensional, purposeless, non-directed entity, then a supernatural god seems to fit that description. This being is generally described as being non-physical and outside time, therefore dimensionless; purposeless, because god apparently didn’t need to create anything; and non-directed, since nothing can command or control the activity of such a being.

That is a perfect description of the blind Goddess supposed by her worshippers to create utterly at random without having the slightest notion of what She is doing:

The whole presents nothing but the idea of a blind Nature, impregnated by a great vivifying principle, and pouring forth from her lap, without discernment or parental care, her maimed and abortive children!

• David Hume

How could a god, such as the God of Classical Theism is conceived, actually do anything, then? How can it create natural entities? How can it interact with the natural world? How can it dictate the thinking and actions of humans, as Yahweh is claimed to have done?

The advantage of believing in the blind Goddess is that She has nothing to answer for! And her worshippers follow gratefully in Her footsteps absolutely free from all obligations - except those that are arbitrarily self-imposed…

You have as good as admitted that your god is irrelevant to our present existence, even if it exists in its own right - or, in its initial creative capacity, is indistinguishable from such particles and/or forces as are theorised to have existed before the birth of the known universe.

There is certainly no doubt whatsoever that the blind Goddess is indistinguishable from such particles and/or forces as are theorised to have existed before the birth of the known universe! A most economical hypothesis - even though hopelessly inadequate.

And of course the chances of the universe existing may be minute.

“may”?

But it only had to happen once - from a number of possibilities we cannot discern - just as the origination of life only had to happen once, in 13.7 (or so) billion years, in order for us to be here contemplating it. The chances of any individual winning a lottery are minute, but it still happens.

The appeal to extreme improbability reveals a desperate ploy to justify the mere possibility of the blind Goddess hypothesis - which is negligible when every factor is taken into account:

1. The existence of matter remains unexplained.
2. The orderliness of the universe remains unexplained.
3. The increase in the complexity of matter remains unexplained.
4. The precise conditions necessary for life remain unexplained.
5. The origin of the urge to survive remains unexplained.
6. The development of life remains unexplained.
7. The survival of life remains unexplained.
8. The origin of the mind remains unexplained.
9. The development of insight into reality remains unexplained.
10. The origin of autonomy remains unexplained.
11. The origin of morality remains unexplained.
12. The origin of love remains unexplained.

“it” only had to happen once?

 

[WandererLD]

1. The existence of matter remains unexplained.
2. The orderliness of the universe remains unexplained.
3. The increase in the complexity of matter remains unexplained.
4. The precise conditions necessary for life remain unexplained.
5. The origin of the urge to survive remains unexplained.
6. The development of life remains unexplained.
7. The survival of life remains unexplained.
8. The origin of the mind remains unexplained.
9. The development of insight into reality remains unexplained.
10. The origin of autonomy remains unexplained.
11. The origin of morality remains unexplained.
12. The origin of love remains unexplained.

Could you elaborate on a few of these? I just want to expand my own thoughts. Unexplained doesn’t mean an explanation does or doesn’t exist, it is just unknown at this point.

1. Are you asking why the laws of the universe exist? It is not like harmony was instant when the universe was young. Many scriptures from antiquity follow some kind of “order from chaos” which still applies today. The amount of matter and energy that exist are the reason why the laws of the universe exist. That isn’t order, it is natural.
2. How is it complex? They still follow basic fundamental rules, which creates a “complexity” on the large overall scale.
3. If the urge to survive is a non conscious act, couldn’t this unconscious instinct reflect atomic stablility?
4. Doesn’t evolution explain this to be luck?
5. Is self awareness the first stage of the human mind? Also, the mind as we know it today is based on a comlexity of language and agreements. I also lean towards our thoughts not being our own, but merely our brain trying to organize these.
6. This goes back to number 3. Our insight into reality is so complex, but finding the first components would help our understanding as to how it evolved over time.
7. Buddhism teaches that life simply burns away through time, so developing an attachment to physical things only creates pain and suffering. Addiction to anything creates a “love” which is affected when that something is taken away. There is also the idea that when human beings mate, we stare into each others eyes. This is something that is unique to human beings and if I am wrong on that than forgive me. Yet this isn’t love, it is developing an attachment. The recognition of death needed to come before love. When you add these with the complexity of human language, love can then be developed as a philosophical thought.

My questions for you

1. Do the self and the universe have a beginning?
2. Do the self and the universe have no beginning?
3. Do the self and the universe have both beginning and no beginning?
4. Do the self and the universe have neither beginning nor no begging.

-lemondiesel

 

[tonyrey]

1. The existence of matter remains unexplained.
2. The orderliness of the universe remains unexplained.
3. The increase in the complexity of matter remains unexplained.
4. The precise conditions necessary for life remain unexplained.
5. The origin of the urge to survive remains unexplained.
6. The development of life remains unexplained.
7. The survival of life remains unexplained.
8. The origin of the mind remains unexplained.
9. The development of insight into reality remains unexplained.
10. The origin of autonomy remains unexplained.
11. The origin of morality remains unexplained.
12. The origin of love remains unexplained.

A pleasure!

Unexplained doesn’t mean an explanation does or doesn’t exist, it is just unknown at this point.

Since no one has ever observed everything coming from nothing and in the absence of any credible scientific hypothesis to that effect it is reasonable to believe it is impossible.

1. Are you asking why the laws of the universe exist? It is not like harmony was instant when the universe was young. Many scriptures from antiquity follow some kind of “order from chaos” which still applies today. The amount of matter and energy that exist are the reason why the laws of the universe exist. That isn’t order, it is natural.

The quantity of matter in the universe does not explain why the laws of nature are constant and predictable - unless you can produce an explanation.

1. How is it complex? They still follow basic fundamental rules, which creates a “complexity” on the large overall scale.

How did the rules originate?

1. ?

1. If the urge to survive is a non conscious act, couldn’t this unconscious instinct reflect atomic stability?

Inanimate objects do not have instincts.

1. ?

1. Doesn’t evolution explain this to be luck?

Luck is a hopelessly inadequate explanation of the immense complexity of life.

1. Is self awareness the first stage of the human mind? Also, the mind as we know it today is based on a complexity of language and agreements. I also lean towards our thoughts not being our own, but merely our brain trying to organize these.

If our thoughts are not our own and merely electrical impulses there is no obvious reason why they should provide insight into reality. Since computers don’t know what they are doing
why should biological computers be different?

1. This goes back to number 3. Our insight into reality is so complex, but finding the first components would help our understanding as to how it evolved over time.

You are assuming “the first components” are material objects yet the mind is superior because it knows it exists and can control material objects.

1. ?
2. ?

1. Buddhism teaches that life simply burns away through time, so developing an attachment to physical things only creates pain and suffering. Addiction to anything creates a “love” which is affected when that something is taken away. There is also the idea that when human beings mate, we stare into each others eyes. This is something that is unique to human beings and if I am wrong on that than forgive me. Yet this isn’t love, it is developing an attachment. The recognition of death needed to come before love. When you add these with the complexity of human language, love can then be developed as a philosophical thought.

The highest form of love is far more than an attachment. It is based on the power to choose to sacrifice oneself for another person.

1. Do the self and the universe have a beginning?

I believe they do because there is no evidence of anything without a beginning.
2. Do the self and the universe have no beginning?

1. Do the self and the universe have both beginning and no beginning?
   That would infringe the principle of contradiction.

1. Do the self and the universe have neither beginning nor no begging.

I don’t believe they begged to be created!

PS Small font is difficult to read.

 

[CopticChristian]

Give it a little time, I think it’s only around 150 years since we first knew the Sun is made of hydrogen, now we know the composition of stars and galaxies we can never possibly visit.

We’re made in God’s image doesn’t mean God has a belly button and nose hair.

You are your thoughts, there is no separate you for you to control.

It doesn’t do any of those things, and the only alternative explanation I’ve heard is “it’s like wow supernatural man, come wallow in superstition and ignorance”.

It’s unlikely that greater knowledge will cause anyone to think of their child as a machine and not as a person. On the other hand it’s not that far back when ignorance had people worrying their children could be replaced by changelings.

Inocent,

I believe that you may want to take another look at this. You are not your thoughts and you are also not your emotions. You may want to read L. Michael Hall, Secrets of Personal Mastery and examine the Meta-Model of the mind.

If you have a thought coupled with an emotion then you can reflect on that…

You can then ask how you feel about that emotion and then you can ask what
you think about that feeling of that thought as you continue to do self reflective thinking until you get to the point where you can then step outside this process and

Observe the thinking about feeling about thinking etc…and then you conclude that those were thoughts and those were emotions and they were not you.

You can observe the process however you are neither your thoughts, your emotions and neither are you your actions…yet there is a you…

 

[Gaber]

Inocent,

Originally Posted by inocente …
You are your thoughts, there is no separate you for you to control.

Ths gives rise to the useful and fascinating distinction between “you/me” as person and “I” as essence. “You” can say “I have a personaity” but by “I am a personality” can only mean that you are a sort of celebrity or known on the media. Indeed, the instances portrayed in the latest ID magazine and such books as The Man Who thought His Wife Was a Hat can demonstrate that while personality may change even radically, the self is continuous. The question lies in what is it that is self-aware and has person as its appearant object? If you are someone who has expereinced that state either of pure awareness without attribute or qualification, (deep meditation) or the state of simple dispassionate awreness sans identity as person, (Dr.Eban Alexander lll & Dr. Jill Bolte Taylor) the ordinary state that most people walk around in comes into serious question as being either actual or fundamental. These add credence to the allegedly Eastern philosophical idea (Catholicism being an Eastern religin, remember) that Man is consciousness primarily, and a person only secondarily.

 

[Sair]

The appeal to extreme improbability reveals a desperate ploy to justify the mere possibility of the blind Goddess hypothesis - which is negligible when every factor is taken into account:

1. The existence of matter remains unexplained.
2. The orderliness of the universe remains unexplained.
3. The increase in the complexity of matter remains unexplained.
4. The precise conditions necessary for life remain unexplained.
5. The origin of the urge to survive remains unexplained.
6. The development of life remains unexplained.
7. The survival of life remains unexplained.
8. The origin of the mind remains unexplained.
9. The development of insight into reality remains unexplained.
10. The origin of autonomy remains unexplained.
11. The origin of morality remains unexplained.
12. The origin of love remains unexplained.

“it” only had to happen once?

The birth of the universe, of course. That was obvious from the context of the statement. The improbability of the universe arising naturally might well be minute, as I said - or it might be that the universe we have is just the only functional possibility. Either way, we are here contemplating it, so it obviously happened somehow. Its improbability as an entirely natural phenomenon, if this is indeed the case, actually in no way increases the probability that it was the creation of a supernatural mind, unless and until you can show some independent evidence of such an entity. The desperation is actually on the side of the theists who say, “We don’t know how the universe originated, therefore god.” Scientists are just getting on with the exploration.

Your terminology in this list betrays a particular ontological view of the world - a top-down conception that phenomena such as “autonomy”, “morality” and “love”, for example, are things that exist in their own right, rather than features of the way humans and human communities are constituted. You also seem to assume that the apparent orderliness of the universe is a thing in itself, something imposed from beyond the stuff that constitutes the universe, rather than just the way that stuff tends to behave. Why does it behave in such ways? Well, as you say, we haven’t explained that yet. Matter and energy may just be brute facts, in the way your god is taken by believers to be a brute fact.

Speaking of scientific exploration, the conditions and processes by which life arose are presently a topic of extensive research. The explanation of the development and evolution of life, its survival by adaptation to changing environments, is becoming more detailed by the day, bolstered by more and more findings both in the field and the laboratory.

And just to reiterate - rattling off this list as if to add at the end, “Therefore, god”, is no help to anyone seeking an explanation. If science has not (yet) explained these things, religion cannot. Religion might have developed as a stop-gap measure to compensate for human ignorance; but it does not deal in real-world explanations. It can invent myths and dogmas and fill the gaps in our knowledge with idle speculation and unfalsifiable assertions, but that’s it. The items in your list are open questions as far as scientists are concerned. If you insist upon treating them as closed, you shut down any possibility of learning and discovery.

 

[inocente]

You made a statement of fact that was not a fact. Just own up. This is your default position re: people of faith: we are dismissed because…wait for it…

… everyone tells you that you will burn in hell!!! Except they don’t.

I said fundamentalists, nothing about “people of faith”.

I do dismiss fundamentalist bigots, obviously.

I’ve already refused twice to spend days going through 2,900 posts and then checking the posters don’t mind my crossing threads on them, just to satisfy a self-appointed judge about a passing remark.

Enough already, your trolling is preposterous.

• I “disrespected” Baptists? Nah. You are a Baptist? Srsly? Say this please: Jesus Christ is my Lord and my God and I believe in the the Resurrection and eternal life.* That’s what Baptists believe. Or perhaps you meant you were baptised as a child by a Baptist preacher and you don’t believe any of that. Which would make you not a Baptist, of course.

The stickies say it is never acceptable to question the sincerity of an individual’s beliefs, I’ll report you every time you do it from now on, quoting your posts on this thread. Up to you.

Your attempt to dictate what someone of another faith should believe is preposterous.

I’ve been asked what I believe before, but by civil posters, and you can search back through all my posts to find my answer - it’s preposterous for you to think I care what you think, we’re justified in Christ, not by strangers on the internet.

You know, you can say “your capricious standards” as much as you want, won’t make them exist. Now let’s note something here. You say you haven’t ever found any science about these issues, so you have never been to any site I have or would link, read any article in any journal, and yet, you have put the word science in quotes, as if, any person regardless of qualifications who has done research into what you might term supernatural phenomena is not doing science. Can’t exist.

Thanks for admitting your standards don’t exist.

I vaguely remember someone linking a list of miraculous healings. It was completely unscientific - no falsifiable hypothesis, no control group, no double blind, no mention of comparable cases of what doctors call spontaneous remission, and most tellingly no mention of the vast majority of cases where nothing out of the ordinary occurs. Not even wrong. Preposterous.

Georges Lemaître, the Catholic priest who had the ear of his pope and originated big bang theory, observed that his theory effectively put the lid on an interventionist god, God must instead be the hidden God described by Isaiah.

So if you want to pretend that “people of faith” must believe in miracles, you’re arguing against high class opposition in your own church, I’m the least of your worries.

 

[inocente]

1. The existence of matter remains unexplained.
2. The orderliness of the universe remains unexplained.
3. The increase in the complexity of matter remains unexplained.
4. The precise conditions necessary for life remain unexplained.
5. The origin of the urge to survive remains unexplained.
6. The development of life remains unexplained.
7. The survival of life remains unexplained.
8. The origin of the mind remains unexplained.
9. The development of insight into reality remains unexplained.
10. The origin of autonomy remains unexplained.
11. The origin of morality remains unexplained.
12. The origin of love remains unexplained.

1, 2, 3 - see the anthropic principle.

4 is unscientific – there’s no way to know what conditions life in other parts of the universe requires.

8, 9, 10 - are impatient given the science of the mind is so young - are we there yet? are we they yet?

The rest are explained by evolution, discussion of which is banned.

 

[inocente]

I believe that you may want to take another look at this. You are not your thoughts and you are also not your emotions. You may want to read L. Michael Hall, Secrets of Personal Mastery and examine the Meta-Model of the mind.

If you have a thought coupled with an emotion then you can reflect on that…

You can then ask how you feel about that emotion and then you can ask what
you think about that feeling of that thought as you continue to do self reflective thinking until you get to the point where you can then step outside this process and

Observe the thinking about feeling about thinking etc…and then you conclude that those were thoughts and those were emotions and they were not you.

You can observe the process however you are neither your thoughts, your emotions and neither are you your actions…yet there is a you…

I looked at the description of that book on amazon, and it says “Treating mind as an emergent process of our entire mind-body-emotion system, …]”

That’s my exact and really my only point, that there is no non-physical agency involved, the mind emerges from the nervous system alone, nothing else. So self reflection is part of the physical mind reflecting on itself, there is no non-physical ghost in a physical machine.

(I’m not a fan of self-improvement books though, and the customer reviews on this one are pretty dismal. Not really my cup of tea but thanks).

 

[atheistgirl]

I said fundamentalists, nothing about “people of faith”.

I’ve been told on an online forum that I’m going to hell when I was questioned about something and my atheism became clear.

I’ve been told by a preacher guy, definately Christian but I don’t think Catholic, that the fires of hell can’t wait to engulf me, because I’m the spawn of the devil.

I’ve been told by Jehovah’s Witnesses that I will be ‘‘annihilated’’ if I don’t convert to Christianity, and, more importantly, believe as they do, as they alone have the truth.

It’s not that unusual for certain people fired up with the zeal of their faith, to proudly proclaim others damned if they don’t correct the error of their ways

Sarah x

 

[CopticChristian]

I looked at the description of that book on amazon, and it says “Treating mind as an emergent process of our entire mind-body-emotion system, …]”

 

[JDaniel]

1, 2, 3 - see the anthropic principle.

4 is unscientific – there’s no way to know what conditions life in other parts of the universe requires.

8, 9, 10 - are impatient given the science of the mind is so young - are we there yet? are we they yet?

The rest are explained by evolution, discussion of which is banned.

Inocente:

If Tonyrey will permit me, I’d like to be recorded as the first to disagree with all that you have written, including the subtle intention behind your “1,2,3 . . .” answer.

With all due respect, my friend (I hope), what does a Baptist-in-Spain believe? Is it OK to believe that God is devoid of a Mind that can and, no doubt, did originate this universe? What is the proof for “reality?” “Mass?” That is, the mass of things that all consist of point particles?

God bless,
jd

 

[inocente]

I’ve been told on an online forum that I’m going to hell when I was questioned about something and my atheism became clear.

I’ve been told by a preacher guy, definately Christian but I don’t think Catholic, that the fires of hell can’t wait to engulf me, because I’m the spawn of the devil.

Do the spawn of the devil get to go to jazz clubs and wear shades all the time, or am I thinking of something else?

Obviously you’ll go to hell, goes without saying, unless you sign here, here, here and here … all righty, thanks, welcome to the Baptist fraternity, please take a cucumber sandwich, your hazelnut chocolate days are behind you now.

 

[JDaniel]

I’ve been told on an online forum that I’m going to hell when I was questioned about something and my atheism became clear.

I’ve been told by a preacher guy, definately Christian but I don’t think Catholic, that the fires of hell can’t wait to engulf me, because I’m the spawn of the devil.

I’ve been told by Jehovah’s Witnesses that I will be ‘‘annihilated’’ if I don’t convert to Christianity, and, more importantly, believe as they do, as they alone have the truth.

It’s not that unusual for certain people fired up with the zeal of their faith, to proudly proclaim others damned if they don’t correct the error of their ways

Sarah x

A-Girl:

And you will no doubt agree that there are ridiculous zealots on both sides of the fence. You’re here, at Catholic Answers Forum, precisely because you know that worthy Catholics will not say those things to you (although, in their heart of hearts, they might believe them.)

Let’s face it, shall we? You believe in “nothingness”, and, perhaps, “nothing;” don’t you? (Platitudes will not be the subjects of serious discussion with me.)

God bless,
jd