Does atheism lead to anything positive?

[Vera_Ljuba]

So since we can’t write the last digit of “pi”, then “pi” must not exist?

No, it only means that “pi” does not exist as the ratio of two positive integers, or the solution of any polynomial equation.

 

[STT]

Oh good lord…

So since we can’t write the last digit of “pi”, then “pi” must not exist?

Back to the drawing board with you.

I said we practically cannot reach to infinity. Moreover there is no last digit for “pi”.

 

[Vonsalza]

No, it only means that “pi” does not exist as the ratio of two positive integers, or the solution of any polynomial equation.

I said we practically cannot reach to infinity. Moreover there is no last digit for “pi”.

Point obviously being that the possibility of something unable to be experienced, such as the infinite, does not directly preclude requisite non-existence. I’ve yet to see anything beyond philosophical axiom that would suggest otherwise.

 

[STT]

Point obviously being that the possibility of something unable to be experienced, such as the infinite, does not directly preclude requisite non-existence. I’ve yet to see anything beyond philosophical axiom that would suggest otherwise.

Infinite past dose not exist only because we are talking about practical movement along time from infinite past to now.

 

[vz71]

Infinite past dose not exist only because we are talking about practical movement along time from infinite past to now.

From a view that excludes God, it must exist.

 

[STT]

From a view that excludes God, it must exist.

There is no must. Think of a universe with a beginning (without cause) and the rest of the points which follow from beginning.

 

[o_mlly]

…We definitely do not know all the laws of nature but that doesn’t mean we can’t tell the difference between an iPad and a chicken. If you don’t have enough information to make a determination, or enough knowledge to interpret the information, then the only correct response to the question: ‘Was it designed?’ is to say: ‘I don’t know’…

Am I to infer that you think the chicken natural and the IPad unnatural? If so, based on what we previously agree, the IPad’s existence cannot be explained by known PLN.

Can’t resist this: Which came first – the chicken or the IPad?

 

[o_mlly]

Just an FYI, when a software system needs a “true random number” the number is generated from an entropy source outside the software (Intel tends to use thermal noise). The state of the entropy source can be read by the software, but is not generated by the software. See “Hardware Random Number Generator.”

Thanks. I program as well.

To the Big Programmer, nothing is outside His program. His TRN is our free will but the outcomes are already known and always within His program’s parameters.

 

[Vonsalza]

There is no must. Think of a universe with a beginning (without cause) and the rest of the points which follow from beginning.

An effect without cause is an irrationality. Thus the quintessential issue with your premise.

 

[STT]

An effect without cause is an irrationality. Thus the quintessential issue with your premise.

We experience things with starting (when things are built with someone for example) then deduce cause and effect as a principal. We then use this principal to the beginning of universe in a premise and find an problem. Just consider the beginning of the universe as an exception, un cause cause.

 

[Vonsalza]

Just consider the beginning of the universe as an exception, un cause cause.

How very irrationally religious of you.

While I don’t find a huge problem with this approach (as God is the only un-caused “cause-er”), the rationalist and materialist does not “make exceptions”. They simply can’t jive with what you’re preaching.

 

[STT]

How very irrationally religious of you.

While I don’t find a huge problem with this approach (as God is the only un-caused “cause-er”), the rationalist and materialist does not “make exceptions”. They simply can’t jive with what you’re preaching.

That is one possibility. There is no way to go back in time and experience the beginning. So we, including God, can never find a prove for how was the beginning.

 

[o_mlly]

Am I to infer that you think the chicken natural and the IPad unnatural? If so, based on what we previously agree, the IPad’s existence cannot be explained by known PLN. …

If the 4 winged “Chernobyl” chicken is natural then its existence can be explained by known physical laws of nature (and appreciated by football fans everywhere). Exposing reproductive organs to radiation alters the DNA of the male’s sperm.

If the IPad exists then its existence can be explained by the known physical laws of nature. The fabrication of every one of its plastic and metal parts follows the laws of physical nature. The movement of electrons through its inner workings follows physical laws of nature. If all of its parts and all of its movements follow the laws of physical nature then the thing is natural.

The one who claims some things are natural and others unnatural faces the impossible task of identifying something that is unnatural.

The usual ploy to define the unnatural is to claim some human involvement in its existence. This ploy is self-defeating for the atheist. If the human being can act outside of nature then the human being transcends nature. If a thing transcends nature then some of its parts must be supernatural, i.e., soul.

(Of course, there are no 4 winged chickens. Poetic license to make a point. There are simply far less chickens in Chernobyl then before the accident.)

 

[Bradski]

The usual ploy to define the unnatural is to claim some human involvement in its existence. This ploy is self-defeating for the atheist. If the human being can act outside of nature then the human being transcends nature. If a thing transcends nature then some of its parts must be supernatural, i.e., soul.

Let’s not confuse unnatural with supernatural. Unnatural is that which has occurred when the physical laws of nature would not produce the item or a particular use for an item in themselves but are intentionally used with an goal in mind. A design in other words. Such as an iPad, which could not come into existence without someone using the natural laws to produce the components to make one for a specific purpose which would not occur as a natural process.

And it doesn’t have to be human involvement. A twig is a natural component of a tree which has evolved naturally to aid the production of leaves. If a chimp breaks it off the tree and uses it as a tool to root out termites, then it is being used unnaturally. It becomes a designed object.

If a process is used outside of natural laws – if the laws are circumvented or ignored or superseded, then that process is supernatural (not unnatural). So someone like Behe would say that as an eye could not have developed naturally, it would have needed supernatural involvement. Hence God (not some nonsensical Intelligent Designer as he would insist).

 

[o_mlly]

Let’s not confuse unnatural with supernatural. Unnatural is that which has occurred when the physical laws of nature would not produce the item or a particular use for an item in themselves but are intentionally used with an goal in mind. A design in other words. Such as an iPad, which could not come into existence without someone using the natural laws to produce the components to make one for a specific purpose which would not occur as a natural process.

And it doesn’t have to be human involvement. A twig is a natural component of a tree which has evolved naturally to aid the production of leaves. If a chimp breaks it off the tree and uses it as a tool to root out termites, then it is being used unnaturally. It becomes a designed object.

If a process is used outside of natural laws – if the laws are circumvented or ignored or superseded, then that process is supernatural (not unnatural). So someone like Behe would say that as an eye could not have developed naturally, it would have needed supernatural involvement. Hence God (not some nonsensical Intelligent Designer as he would insist).

If followed , the logic above concludes that the chimp who circumvents the natural law by breaking the twig is a supernatural actor. The logic elevates the chimp in the same way others elevate the human being as capable to transcend nature. If a thing transcends nature then there exists a state beyond nature to which those things transcend. We call that the spiritual realm.

If the above logic is solid and atheistic then atheism leads to something positive: the existence of a non-material reality.

 

[Bradski]

If followed , the logic above concludes that the chimp who circumvents the natural law by breaking the twig is a supernatural actor. The logic elevates the chimp in the same way others elevate the human being as capable to transcend nature. If a thing transcends nature then there exists a state beyond nature to which those things transcend. We call that the spiritual realm.

If the above logic is solid and atheistic then atheism leads to something positive: the existence of a non-material reality.

A chimp doesn’t circumvent natural laws. He simply uses something, a twig in this case, in a manner which is different to the purpose a twig exists. A tree isn’t a production centre for tools to access termites. The chimp uses natural laws to design and utilise a natural object in an unnatural way.

Otherwise you might as well say that having eggs on toast is a supernatural event.

 

[o_mlly]

A chimp doesn’t circumvent natural laws. He simply uses something, a twig in this case, in a manner which is different to the purpose a twig exists. A tree isn’t a production centre for tools to access termites. The chimp uses natural laws to design and utilise a natural object in an unnatural way.

Otherwise you might as well say that having eggs on toast is a supernatural event.

How does one know the teleology of a twig does not naturally include being a chimp’s tool? You might as well say that the squirrels who rip the leaves from the twig to make their nests also act unnaturally, not to mention grossly unnatural termites who consume the the tree itself.

The logic lacks a premise stating the principle(s) that differentiates natural from unnatural and supernatural from unnatural. It is not very instructive to claim their are differences without explaining why there are a differences in general. With the general premise stated then particulars, like the chimp, can be evaluated. I do not see anything unnatural in the higher orders of being using the lower as instruments. If anything, the hierarchical structure in nature suggests a supernatural order, not an unnatural order.

 

[Bradski]

How does one know the teleology of a twig does not naturally include being a chimp’s tool? You might as well say that the squirrels who rip the leaves from the twig to make their nests also act unnaturally, not to mention grossly unnatural termites who consume the the tree itself.

The logic lacks a premise stating the principle(s) that differentiates natural from unnatural and supernatural from unnatural. It is not very instructive to claim their are differences without explaining why there are a differences in general. With the general premise stated then particulars, like the chimp, can be evaluated. I do not see anything unnatural in the higher orders of being using the lower as instruments. If anything, the hierarchical structure in nature suggests a supernatural order, not an unnatural order.

We have defined the differences. And we keep giving examples.

A twig which is part of a tree and is covered with leaves is entiry natural. If a chimp breaks the twig off, strips the leaves in a specific way and uses it as a tool to catch termites, then the twig is then being used unnaturally. You would recognise it as a designed object.

If all the leaves fall from the tree and lay around on the ground in a random manner, then that is entirely natural. But if a squirrrel gathers the leaves and lays them out in a specific way to make a nest, then the leaves would be used unnaturally. You would recognise it as a designed object.

If a group of people take naturally ocurring materials and reorganise those materials to make an iPad, then those materials would be used unnaturally. You would recognise it as a designed object.

Now the question arises…how do you tell what God has designed? How do you tell when the supernatural comes into play? When the laws of nature have been circumvented.

 

[o_mlly]

We have defined the differences. And we keep giving examples.

A twig which is part of a tree and is covered with leaves is entiry natural. If a chimp breaks the twig off, strips the leaves in a specific way and uses it as a tool to catch termites, then the twig is then being used unnaturally. You would recognise it as a designed object.

If all the leaves fall from the tree and lay around on the ground in a random manner, then that is entirely natural. But if a squirrrel gathers the leaves and lays them out in a specific way to make a nest, then the leaves would be used unnaturally. You would recognise it as a designed object.

If a group of people take naturally ocurring materials and reorganise those materials to make an iPad, then those materials would be used unnaturally. You would recognise it as a designed object.

Now the question arises…how do you tell what God has designed? How do you tell when the supernatural comes into play? When the laws of nature have been circumvented.

The logic which concludes that squirrels act unnaturally when building nests strikes me as peculiar. Do all animal kingdom nest-builders act unnaturally? Which nest-builders act naturally? If none then the same logic entails that all animals who instrumentalize vegetative life in some designed method act unnaturally. But there are many examples of instinctive design in the acts of animals.

Juxtapose the notion that animal nest-builders are freaks with chimps dressed in clown costumes riding bicycles before large groups of humans. Does not the latter seem unnatural not by degree but by kind? Of course it does.

We can explain the nest-builders with our understanding of natural laws. As we agreed, that makes nest-builders natural. We cannot explain chimps on wheels with our understanding of natural laws. That makes chimps-on-wheels unnatural.

 

[Bradski]

The logic which concludes that squirrels act unnaturally when building nests strikes me as peculiar. Do all animal kingdom nest-builders act unnaturally? Which nest-builders act naturally? If none then the same logic entails that all animals who instrumentalize vegetative life in some designed method act unnaturally. But there are many examples of instinctive design in the acts of animals.

Juxtapose the notion that animal nest-builders are freaks with chimps dressed in clown costumes riding bicycles before large groups of humans. Does not the latter seem unnatural not by degree but by kind? Of course it does.

We can explain the nest-builders with our understanding of natural laws. As we agreed, that makes nest-builders natural. We cannot explain chimps on wheels with our understanding of natural laws. That makes chimps-on-wheels unnatural.

So if I build a house, the house is entirely a naturally ocurring object? As is an iPad and a nuclear power plant?

If you come across a nest in the woods, do you think: ‘Hey, that’s an unusual way for a number of leaves to arbitrarily assemble themselves’. Or do you think that it has all the attributes of being designed and that it couldn’t have ocurred naturally. That is, without some conscious decisions regarding form, content and use.