T
tonyrey
Guest
[/QUOTE]
- Status
M
MindOverMatter
Guest
I bet he would like to think so, but only because he wants to define his own values.
Which goes to show that he doesn’t really consider himself in that fashion. He would be offended if somebody called him a cow-dung outside of the context of this debate!
C
Charles_Darwin
Guest
M
MindOverMatter
Guest
You are already demeaning it by projecting your naturalistic point of veiw on it, and ridiculing any concept that would suggest otherwise.
C
Charles_Darwin
Guest
No i don’t. To understand is not to demean. You are the one that demeans everything you can’t attach myth and fairy tales to, its very very sad. The cosmos is amazing regardless of its origin, don’t you agree?
YO=ou do the same with emotions. Love is a very real emotion caused by chemical reactions in the brain. But you don’t like that fact so you set out to demean it. The emotion is the EXACT same regardless of the origin. So why to you demean the emotion, when we attach reality to it instead of unfounded myth?
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
Charles Darwin
YO=ou do the same with emotions. Love is a very real emotion caused by chemical reactions in the brain. But you don’t like that fact so you set out to demean it. The emotion is the EXACT same regardless of the origin. So why to you demean the emotion, when we attach reality to it instead of unfounded myth?
I don’t know how you can demean the emotion of love any more fully than by calling it a “chemical reaction in the brain.” My God, I’d really hate to read any of your poetry. Or rather, I don’t see how there could be any poetry in you with that attitude.
YO=ou do the same with emotions. Love is a very real emotion caused by chemical reactions in the brain. But you don’t like that fact so you set out to demean it. The emotion is the EXACT same regardless of the origin. So why to you demean the emotion, when we attach reality to it instead of unfounded myth?
I don’t know how you can demean the emotion of love any more fully than by calling it a “chemical reaction in the brain.” My God, I’d really hate to read any of your poetry. Or rather, I don’t see how there could be any poetry in you with that attitude.
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
In reply to the thread question:
The Big Bang points to the Creation event, without proving God as absolutely necessary. As Pascal said, God gives the theist just enough reason to believe, and the atheist just enough reason not to believe.
And enough rope to hang ourselves if we so choose. :bigyikes:
The Big Bang points to the Creation event, without proving God as absolutely necessary. As Pascal said, God gives the theist just enough reason to believe, and the atheist just enough reason not to believe.
And enough rope to hang ourselves if we so choose. :bigyikes:
C
Charles_Darwin
Guest
What does poetry have to do with anythingCharles Darwin
YO=ou do the same with emotions. Love is a very real emotion caused by chemical reactions in the brain. But you don’t like that fact so you set out to demean it. The emotion is the EXACT same regardless of the origin. So why to you demean the emotion, when we attach reality to it instead of unfounded myth?
I don’t know how you can demean the emotion of love any more fully than by calling it a “chemical reaction in the brain.” My God, I’d really hate to read any of your poetry. Or rather, I don’t see how there could be any poetry in you with that attitude.
.Love is caused by chemicals in the brain. THAT IS A FACT. That is the ORIGIN of the emotion, knowing the origin of the emotion does NOT change the emotion.
Why do you demean things just because we know there true origins? Truth is a GOOD thing.
T
tonyrey
Guest
You are obviously very prosaic!
So your love for a person is merely the product of a chemical reaction?
In other words it remains the product of a chemical reaction over which you have no control - like all your thoughts, feelings and decisions?
What is the source of your knowledge?
Is goodness caused by chemicals in the brain?
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
Is goodness caused by chemicals in the brain? 
G
Greg27
Guest
William L. Craig is an intelligent person and he writes very well on philosophical topics of his interest (he does have a Ph.D in philosophy). However, I don’t think the big bang can necessarily be seen as the hinge on which God’s existence is proved. The problem is that the big bang might be explained, perhaps in the next couple of decades, by a better scientific theory in physics and cosmology. Science is always changing. To me introducing God just introduces another layer of mystery when science should try to make the principles of nature and the origin of the universe more intelligible to reason. Scientists did not simply throw up their hands and say ‘God did it’ when confronted with difficult scientific questions such as the nature of electromagnetism or particle physics or how to explain the spectra of stars.
Second, the cosmological proof is more subtle than just needing a big bang. It involves complex questions going back to necessity and contingency and also whether each event in the universe requires a cause that is itself sufficient to explain the event or law in question. Philosophers have long disagreed about the nature of the problem and the cosmological proof is not irrefutable, as even Aquinas realised (though he thought along with other proofs it provided a good cumulative case for God’s existence). Even if there is no big bang, the cosmological proof may still have a lot of weight to it in considering seriously if a being such as God exists, and whether he created the universe.
Second, the cosmological proof is more subtle than just needing a big bang. It involves complex questions going back to necessity and contingency and also whether each event in the universe requires a cause that is itself sufficient to explain the event or law in question. Philosophers have long disagreed about the nature of the problem and the cosmological proof is not irrefutable, as even Aquinas realised (though he thought along with other proofs it provided a good cumulative case for God’s existence). Even if there is no big bang, the cosmological proof may still have a lot of weight to it in considering seriously if a being such as God exists, and whether he created the universe.
T
tonyrey
Guest
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
Greg
*
The problem is that the big bang might be explained, perhaps in the next couple of decades, by a better scientific theory in physics and cosmology.*
I’m sure the atheists are praying that will happen!
It’s difficult to see how you can explain away the Big Bang, there is so much evidence … a lot more than for evolution!
*
The problem is that the big bang might be explained, perhaps in the next couple of decades, by a better scientific theory in physics and cosmology.*
I’m sure the atheists are praying that will happen!
It’s difficult to see how you can explain away the Big Bang, there is so much evidence … a lot more than for evolution!
M
MindOverMatter
Guest
When a scientist makes a claim like this, they can only mean it in regards to the principle of methodological naturalism. Methodological naturalism is an assumption; it is not a scientific proof of naturalism. They are not making a metaphysical claim, which is beyond the bounds of science. What ever caused the existence of physical and chemical laws, this is where emotions come from originally. You cannot speak of origins with out considering the nature of reality as a whole.What does poetry have to do with anything
Love is caused by chemicals in the brain. THAT IS A FACT. That is the ORIGIN of the emotion, knowing the origin of the emotion does NOT change the emotion.
Given that there are different kinds of love, you’re obviously talking about falling in love with another person. First of all, it is true to say that all experience, consciousness and emotion, occurs in conjunction with chemical reactions in the brain. But its simply a fallacy to say, that therefore, chemical reactions is the ultimate cause of emotions and experience. At most one can only say that this or that quality emerges in regards to this or that pattern of events. There is no reason to think that love is necessarily synonymous with a chemical pattern just because it becomes actual in regards to that pattern. It is evident that love becomes actual in regards to physical reactions, but love is also a social reaction that occurs when two minds relate and experience one another, and one cannot identify love outside of that meaningful unity. You cannot reduce it to physical reactions.
The only thing that science has proven is that love is actualized according to bio-chemical mechanisms; thats all. Scientists are progressing in their understanding of bio-chemical mechanisms, but they have not identified, nor understood, why there is such a thing as love. Scientists cannot even speak of love outside of their subjective experiences, because love is the experience of love, not the chemicals that are associated with it. Also, we must recognize that the so called chemicals in question do not function as such outside of the brain; so in a sense it is a mistake to identify any singular cause or origin to what we experience as love. There are many different levels of cause. The physical being only one of them and the least important in terms of identifying the true nature of love. The subjective mind reveals different causes such as freewill and its imaginative creativity. I have never found an idea in objective physical reality. The idea that there is an idea of the universe that consists of an atomic pattern, makes no sense, and neither does it make sense that i can point to an object and say this is love. Love is a subjective phenomenon of the mind, not the brain. There is no obvious reason to think that the two are one and the same. Naturalism is a shallow judgment that refuses to take in to account the subjective experiences of people, and the difference between those experiences and that which actualizes them. But the experience and that which actualizes the experience is qualitatively and quantitatively different; whether you wish to admit it or not. What is the length or the width of an idea? What is the shape of imagination? What is the weight of my will?
I have never understood why one thought that they were escaping fantasy simply by disbelieving in God. Our dignified sense of humanity is one big lie. We are all relatively selfish animals, one way or another, pretending to be better then worms. As for love being nothing more then a manifestation of unfolding events, such a love is not real in terms of having any real significance outside of the fantasies that humanity has invented for itself. Its a deception brought on by chemicals. You do not really love your mum, or your son, or you father or your sister or your wife. The only reason you feel that way is because of the chemical reactions in your brain, which is no different from a drug; its not because something objectively special is occurring. Perhaps you are happy to be nothing more then a slave to nature. The truth is, the life you value, is just one big chemical fallacy that you choose to indulge in, because the real world is far too real for you to handle. I choose to face reality. And to me, its either being a child of God, which i do not know to be not true; or living in a chemical fantasy that i know to be a lie. The latter i would meet with suicide. Without God, the universe is a pointless reality which only serves those people whom live to exploit the senses and see no need to look any deeper except for some vague curiosity and the desire to have power over ones environment. Not to mention the selfish act of bringing more innocent children in to this world for the sake of a genetic legacy; or because people just like sex. If you care not for objective identity, meaning, purpose, moral truth, and existential significance, then mere pleasure, however finite and fleeting, is going to appear a better deal to you. As far as morality is concerned, perhaps you would rather a world in which you defined your own principles, ones that met your own agenda.
But not for me. Its either God, or I’d rather have never of existed at all.
Or love could be a gift from God.
Believe what you like; but please don’t pretend to know what science is talking about.
Science has nothing to say on the matter.
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
Charles Darwin
What does poetry have to do with anything?
Is poetry also caused by chemicals in the brain? What purpose is served by those chemicals arranging themselves in such a way as to write a poem? How do those chemicals know the difference between a good poem and a bad poem? Why do those chemicals cause us to worship God, or to rebel against God?
If you are going to be a materialist, you have to explain everything in terms of chemical materials.
That is so off-the-wall INSANE!
What does poetry have to do with anything?
Is poetry also caused by chemicals in the brain? What purpose is served by those chemicals arranging themselves in such a way as to write a poem? How do those chemicals know the difference between a good poem and a bad poem? Why do those chemicals cause us to worship God, or to rebel against God?
If you are going to be a materialist, you have to explain everything in terms of chemical materials.
That is so off-the-wall INSANE!
W
wbarquez
Guest
The big bang does not directly prove that God exists the way we could prove that water is composed of hydrogen and oxygen. However, it enables us to understand the natural contingency of material reality, which in turn tells us that the universe is not eternal and therfore makes room for the existence of a necessary being who brought the universe into existence. By revelation, this being is known to be God.
C
Charles_Darwin
Guest
Given that there are different kinds of love, you’re obviously talking about falling in love with another person. First of all, it is true to say that all experience, consciousness and emotion, occurs in conjunction with chemical reactions in the brain. But its simply a fallacy to say, that therefore, chemical reactions is the ultimate cause of emotions and experience.
Provide me one peice of empirical evidence for emotions being anything other than product of our brains.
**At most one can only say that this or that quality emerges in regards to this or that pattern of events. There is no reason to think that love is necessarily synonymous with a chemical pattern just because it becomes actual in regards to that pattern. It is evident that love becomes actual in regards to physical reactions, but love is also a social reaction that occurs when two minds relate and experience one another, and one cannot identify love outside of that meaningful unity. You cannot reduce it to physical reactions.
**
Provide me one peice of empirical evidence for emotions being anything other than product of our brains.
**The only thing that science has proven is that love is actualized according to bio-chemical mechanisms; thats all. Scientists are progressing in their understanding of bio-chemical mechanisms, but they have not identified, nor understood, why there is such a thing as love. Scientists cannot even speak of love outside of their subjective experiences, because love is the experience of love, not the chemicals that are associated with it. Also, we must recognize that the so called chemicals in question do not function as such outside of the brain; so in a sense it is a mistake to identify any singular cause or origin to what we experience as love. There are many different levels of cause. The physical being only one of them and the least important in terms of identifying the true nature of love. The subjective mind reveals different causes such as freewill and its imaginative creativity. I have never found an idea in objective physical reality. **
Provide me one peice of empirical evidence for emotions being anything other than product of our brains.
**
The idea that there is an idea of the universe that consists of an atomic pattern, makes no sense, and neither does it make sense that i can point to an object and say this is love. Love is a subjective phenomenon of the mind, not the brain. There is no obvious reason to think that the two are one and the same. Naturalism is a shallow judgment that refuses to take in to account the subjective experiences of people, and the difference between those experiences and that which actualizes them. But the experience and that which actualizes the experience is qualitatively and quantitatively different; whether you wish to admit it or not. What is the length or the width of an idea? What is the shape of imagination? What is the weight of my will?**
Provide me one peice of empirical evidence for emotions being anything other than product of our brains.
I have never understood why one thought that they were escaping fantasy simply by disbelieving in God.
Not escaping fanstasy, escaping one more fantasy.
Our dignified sense of humanity is one big lie. We are all relatively selfish animals, one way or another, pretending to be better then worms. As for love being nothing more then a manifestation of unfolding events, such a love is not real in terms of having any real significance outside of the fantasies that humanity has invented for itself. Its a deception brought on by chemicals.
A deception? So when you drink, are you drunk? Or are you decived by the drink into thinking you are drunk?
**You do not really love your mum, or your son, or you father or your sister or your wife. The only reason you feel that way is because of the chemical reactions in your brain, which is no different from a drug; **
Thats what love is. Like i said just because we know the origin, does not mean the sensation is any different, which was my initial point.
its not because something objectively special is occurring. Perhaps you are happy to be nothing more then a slave to nature. The truth is, the life you value, is just one big chemical fallacy that you choose to indulge in, because the real world is far too real for you to handle.
Ahahahhaha, you mean the real world that is not supported by ONE SHREAD of empirical evidence?
I choose to face reality. And to me, its either being a child of God, which i do not know to be not true; or living in a chemical fantasy that i know to be a lie. The latter i would meet with suicide. Without God, the universe is a pointless reality which only serves those people whom live to exploit the senses and see no need to look any deeper except for some vague curiosity and the desire to have power over ones environment. Not to mention the selfish act of bringing more innocent children in to this world for the sake of a genetic legacy; or because people just like sex.
Ok so you choose to belief in things that have no supporting evidence because they make you feel good, fair enough. I prefer reality, but each to their own.
If you care not for objective identity, meaning, purpose, moral truth, and existential significance, then mere pleasure, however finite and fleeting, is going to appear a better deal to you. As far as morality is concerned, perhaps you would rather a world in which you defined your own principles, ones that met your own agenda.
Or perhaps i realise what a cooperative society is.
**But not for me. Its either God, or I’d rather have never of existed at all. **
Ok so you choose to belief in things that have no supporting evidence because they make you feel good, fair enough. I prefer reality, but each to their own.
Or love could be a gift from God.
Empirical evidence please.
Believe what you like; but please don’t pretend to know what science is talking about.
I think there is only one of us that does not understand science.
Science has nothing to say on the matter.
What matter?
Provide me one peice of empirical evidence for emotions being anything other than product of our brains.
**At most one can only say that this or that quality emerges in regards to this or that pattern of events. There is no reason to think that love is necessarily synonymous with a chemical pattern just because it becomes actual in regards to that pattern. It is evident that love becomes actual in regards to physical reactions, but love is also a social reaction that occurs when two minds relate and experience one another, and one cannot identify love outside of that meaningful unity. You cannot reduce it to physical reactions.
**
Provide me one peice of empirical evidence for emotions being anything other than product of our brains.
**The only thing that science has proven is that love is actualized according to bio-chemical mechanisms; thats all. Scientists are progressing in their understanding of bio-chemical mechanisms, but they have not identified, nor understood, why there is such a thing as love. Scientists cannot even speak of love outside of their subjective experiences, because love is the experience of love, not the chemicals that are associated with it. Also, we must recognize that the so called chemicals in question do not function as such outside of the brain; so in a sense it is a mistake to identify any singular cause or origin to what we experience as love. There are many different levels of cause. The physical being only one of them and the least important in terms of identifying the true nature of love. The subjective mind reveals different causes such as freewill and its imaginative creativity. I have never found an idea in objective physical reality. **
Provide me one peice of empirical evidence for emotions being anything other than product of our brains.
**
The idea that there is an idea of the universe that consists of an atomic pattern, makes no sense, and neither does it make sense that i can point to an object and say this is love. Love is a subjective phenomenon of the mind, not the brain. There is no obvious reason to think that the two are one and the same. Naturalism is a shallow judgment that refuses to take in to account the subjective experiences of people, and the difference between those experiences and that which actualizes them. But the experience and that which actualizes the experience is qualitatively and quantitatively different; whether you wish to admit it or not. What is the length or the width of an idea? What is the shape of imagination? What is the weight of my will?**
Provide me one peice of empirical evidence for emotions being anything other than product of our brains.
I have never understood why one thought that they were escaping fantasy simply by disbelieving in God.
Not escaping fanstasy, escaping one more fantasy.
Our dignified sense of humanity is one big lie. We are all relatively selfish animals, one way or another, pretending to be better then worms. As for love being nothing more then a manifestation of unfolding events, such a love is not real in terms of having any real significance outside of the fantasies that humanity has invented for itself. Its a deception brought on by chemicals.
A deception? So when you drink, are you drunk? Or are you decived by the drink into thinking you are drunk?
**You do not really love your mum, or your son, or you father or your sister or your wife. The only reason you feel that way is because of the chemical reactions in your brain, which is no different from a drug; **
Thats what love is. Like i said just because we know the origin, does not mean the sensation is any different, which was my initial point.
its not because something objectively special is occurring. Perhaps you are happy to be nothing more then a slave to nature. The truth is, the life you value, is just one big chemical fallacy that you choose to indulge in, because the real world is far too real for you to handle.
Ahahahhaha, you mean the real world that is not supported by ONE SHREAD of empirical evidence?
I choose to face reality. And to me, its either being a child of God, which i do not know to be not true; or living in a chemical fantasy that i know to be a lie. The latter i would meet with suicide. Without God, the universe is a pointless reality which only serves those people whom live to exploit the senses and see no need to look any deeper except for some vague curiosity and the desire to have power over ones environment. Not to mention the selfish act of bringing more innocent children in to this world for the sake of a genetic legacy; or because people just like sex.
Ok so you choose to belief in things that have no supporting evidence because they make you feel good, fair enough. I prefer reality, but each to their own.
If you care not for objective identity, meaning, purpose, moral truth, and existential significance, then mere pleasure, however finite and fleeting, is going to appear a better deal to you. As far as morality is concerned, perhaps you would rather a world in which you defined your own principles, ones that met your own agenda.
Or perhaps i realise what a cooperative society is.
**But not for me. Its either God, or I’d rather have never of existed at all. **
Ok so you choose to belief in things that have no supporting evidence because they make you feel good, fair enough. I prefer reality, but each to their own.
Or love could be a gift from God.
Empirical evidence please.
Believe what you like; but please don’t pretend to know what science is talking about.
I think there is only one of us that does not understand science.
Science has nothing to say on the matter.
What matter?
C
Charles_Darwin
Guest
Wow that is INSANE!!! Wow wow wow wo woooo wooo weeeee!!!If you are going to be a materialist, you have to explain everything in terms of chemical materials.
That is so off-the-wall INSANE!
Oh wait a minute… there is not one shread of empirical evidence for any supernatural anythings. Ah well back to reality
W
wes144
Guest
W
wes144
Guest
The Big Bang is real and is described in the Bible.
Isa 34:4 And all the host of heaven shall be dissolved, and the heavens shall be rolled together as a scroll: and all their host shall fall down, as the leaf falleth off from the vine, and as a falling fig from the fig tree.
Re 6:14 And the heaven departed as a scroll when it is rolled together; and every mountain and island were moved out of their places.
Isa 34:4 And all the host of heaven shall be dissolved, and the heavens shall be rolled together as a scroll: and all their host shall fall down, as the leaf falleth off from the vine, and as a falling fig from the fig tree.
Re 6:14 And the heaven departed as a scroll when it is rolled together; and every mountain and island were moved out of their places.
- Status