Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
They were!No, Genesis is an allegory at best. It does not reflect reality. And you did contradict yourself in several ways. Why can't you discuss something with me? You have a belief that you cannot support. At any rate we are quite far off topic here. Perhaps if you understood evolution you would realize that people were messing around long long before marriage became a thing.
You haven't figured out yet that I presuppose and objective agent?Moral philosophy studies good/evil yes, I suggest you read Kant, Raz, Hägerstörm to name a few. There are plenty of opinions and suggestions but no evidence for a universal moral code.
As a side note; objective/subjective presupposes an objective agent i.e. god(s) so it is a metaphysical term.
You haven't figured out yet that I presuppose and objective agent?
So man is more moral than an ape?
Can we even use the word moral for an ape?
Maybe we could say "instinct"?
It is not a peer reviewed article
I apologize....my bad.How did you conclude I am an atheist? Because I don't agree with your version of Christian doctrine?
Sorry for delay FB....it's a busy week for us nutty Christians.Jesus may have been a real person, but real people aren't gods.
It's really easy for me. Spirit is spirit. The spirit within us is not visible or weighable (new word), maybe it has weight; there have been some experiments but who cares.If you really cannot know, how can you make such confident assertions that it even exists, particularly when no such force strong enough or long-range enough to be significant has been observed, and no evidence (or even definition) of 'spirit' has been found?
IF there was a previous universe, space/time, whatever --- we're still faced with the same problem: Where did THAT come from?We don't know that "everything had to 'start'". We only know that the big bang is the earliest time we currently have access to. Current thinking based on the physics we understand today suggests that the universe we see is very likely to be the product of some previous state - either a different type of spacetime, or the more fundamental state that Krauss describes as 'nothing' (it's not his idea alone - Nobel Laureate physicist Frank Wilczek said, “The answer to the ancient question ‘Why is there something rather than nothing?’ would then be that ‘nothing’ is unstable.” - see Victor Stenger's article 'Why is there Something rather than Nothing'). When time itself is an emergent property, the concept of beginning and ending doesn't make much sense in more fundamental states.
Call it what you will.What would be the point of calling a physical process, be it a phase change, a quantum fluctuation, or whatever, 'God'? where does that get you?
I rather resent God being called magic...but atheists have no, or little, respect for what Christians believe. Whereas they expect "us" to be on our knees or they don't feel fulfilled, or they feel threatened, or something. WHY do scientists care at all what Christians believe? It's two different systems of explaining life. Philosophy is one way, theology is another way. We're all looking for the truth.The idea of trying to remedy a lack of knowledge of the natural world by positing an entity that, by definition, solves the problem by being outside those constraints and therefore inexplicable and unknowable, is no explanation at all - again, I ask how it is in any way a better explanation than that other non-explanation, "It's magic!"?
No. The justification is when you start to see God working in your own life. It's when you begin hearing Him speak to your heart --- and what He tells you turns out to be true. All Christians have had this experience - because they're OPEN to it.To further anthropomorphise it into a 'personal' authority figure looks like wishful thinking - what's the justification?
I don't know much...but I hear it answers more question than any current theory. It would solve some problems that cannot be solved right now.Whitworth wasn't the originator of this idea (an argument can be made that even the Ancient Greeks had similar ideas), it was Nick Bostrom who, in 2003, wrote the 'Simulation Hypothesis' paper that became popular. Since then, there have been many criticisms and rebuttals, but fundamentally it was based on entirely speculative premises that could apply to any number of imaginative possibilities - the Boltzman Brain idea is along similar probabilistic lines (albeit with greater justification).
I understand what you're saying...but what'sWhitworth suggests that the physical properties of our universe are consistent with the properties of a digital VR simulation - but this implies that hyper-advanced entities that can simulate entire universes happen to be using the same kind of computing technology we currently use (and even that is being replaced by quantum computing and neural networks). The claim is that everything is quantised, including space itself; last I heard, it's too early to say that space is quantised, but it is expected to be because of the physical problems with infinite divisibility.
Yeah! Dontcha love it?It's worth considering why we see quantised phenomena - it's because, for example, matter can't exist if the energy of electron orbitals isn't quantised, they'd fall into the nucleus, and so-on. But if quantisation is the key indicator we're in a simulation, this raises the question of what kind of universe the hypothetical simulators exist in - if it has electrons and atoms like ours, then it too will be quantised - that would put them in the same situation as us - do they think that they are also in a simulation?
Why would it have to be utterly different from their own? What about our video games...they're very much like our world..just less dimensions...who knows how many dimensions are really in existence...we used to think there were only 3...And if their universe is not quantised like ours, it must be very different - to the extent that it would be unlikely that they would have digital computing at all, and raises the question of why they'd simulate a quantised universe at all - certainly not for ancestor simulation, which was one proposed reason.
In other words, it's hard to imagine what a universe would be like if all the simulation indicators claimed by Whitworth for our universe were absent, whether it could support life as we understand it, and if it could support some kind of life, why they would simulate a universe utterly different from their own.
No problem. I stop watching some theology videos mysef...they're either too simple or too dumb or too impossible to fathom.I stopped watching halfway through.
Agreed.Philosophically, whether we're a VR simulation or not is moot; for us, the world is what it is - we can investigate it to see how it works, and that is what we do.
Yes, it is. It also publishes articles that are opinion pieces. Do you see an abstract? That is a clue that it is not peer reviewed. If you don't even know the general form of a peer reviewed article why are you even arguing here? You should be learning instead.not according to this:
BUMC Proceedings - Peer Reviewed Medical Journal - Baylor Health
"Baylor University Medical Center Proceedings is a peer-reviewed general medical journal"
Peer reviewed by other Baylor (religious) medical faculty, at best. I wonder whom among them was an evolutionary biologist? Organic chemist? Robot-penguin?this is peer review. so what "no"?
Sorry for delay FB....it's a busy week for us nutty Christians.
As to normal people being a god....how many people to you know that claim to be God? I don't know any.
Jesus, as far as I can tell, was either a liar, a lunatic or He was the Messiah, at the very least: the Christ.
We each have to make up our own mind and we won't be convinced by anyone else.
IF there was a previous universe, space/time, whatever --- we're still faced with the same problem: Where did THAT come from?
As to something coming out of nothing, I've repeated so many times what I know about this that I just can't keep repeating it. I'll just say this AGAIN:
Scientists thought the universe ALWAYS existed.
NO BEGINNING.
Then we got the BB theory...which seems to be correct.
NOW they have the problem of HOW it got started.
Call it what you will.
The FIRST CAUSE is GOD.
I rather resent God being called magic...but atheists have no, or little, respect for what Christians believe. Whereas they expect "us" to be on our knees or they don't feel fulfilled, or they feel threatened, or something. WHY do scientists care at all what Christians believe? It's two different systems of explaining life. Philosophy is one way, theology is another way. We're all looking for the truth.
But I can say that whatever did all this IS our of the constraints you speak of. Time itself didn't exist...so it had to be something that created not only matter, but time...so it had to be something OUTSIDE of matter and time. If I make a watch, I'm not PART of that watch.
No. The justification is when you start to see God working in your own life. It's when you begin hearing Him speak to your heart --- and what He tells you turns out to be true. All Christians have had this experience - because they're OPEN to it.
I don't know much...but I hear it answers more question than any current theory. It would solve some problems that cannot be solved right now.
If you ask what, you're going to give me work to do...just trust that I've heard this or read it.
I'm a sci-fi freak besides being Christian, so anything can sound reasonable to me. What does not sound reasonable is that all we see came from NOTHING! So there's dark matter, and space is full of stuff --- that means NOTHING... Where did THAT come from?
The article you posted was not a study nor was it peer reviewed.not according to this:
BUMC Proceedings - Peer Reviewed Medical Journal - Baylor Health
"Baylor University Medical Center Proceedings is a peer-reviewed general medical journal"
Firstly, Jesus could be a liar, lunatic, messiah or legend.Jesus, as far as I can tell, was either a liar, a lunatic or He was the Messiah, at the very least: the Christ.
Why do I pick the least likely option?Firstly, Jesus could be a liar, lunatic, messiah or legend.
Of the four options, there are abundant examples of liars, lunatics and legends, and these options have a higher degree of probability. Why would you choose the least likely possibility? In science and logic, the simplest explanation is usually the best. You're basing your worldview on a supposed supernatural event that we have no way to verify.
A teacher doesn't think he's God or the Christ. He just teaches and would, back then, have been called a Rabbi.There are other possibilities. He may have been a teacher that had a following. After he died his followers kept telling each other and friends about this teacher. Stories grow with the telling. Some of them may even have believed the stories that they told. The earliest of Gospels was not written until a generation after his death. The oldest may have been more than three generations after his death. Plenty of time for major changes to his life story being greatly changed by a largely illiterate population. None of the Gospels are eyewitness accounts.
Did I say the cause was mindless and purposeless??So if the cause is mindless and purposeless it it is still a "GOD"? That seems to be a rather strange definition of "God".
I agree about some Christians. Some go overboard and try to save everybody. I leave that to the Holy Spirit --- I'm just a mere human and don't plan on saving your soul.It depends upon the Christian. Many Christians try to push their beliefs onto others. These Christians have gone out of their way to earn disrespect so some of their claims are called what they are, claims of "magic". And especially when they advocate teaching beliefs that are demonstrably wrong in our public schools.
What do you mean? I said that something had to create all this. I'm Christian, remember. I believe God created everything -- I'm not ready to say what God is...I know that He's the first cause.Why think that there is a "something".
Were you one of the posters that does not believe in objectivity? But now you do?And this is the same exact sort of thing that all believers in religions say. A better objective way of evaluating one's beliefs is needed.
I already said that using the phrase "invoking a god" is very ridiculing to a Christian. I know about the popular saying: If God did not exist, Man would have invented Him.Let's say we don't know and we can never know. That is still not an excuse to invoke a god. All one can say is "I don't know".
But God DID create everything!It is an error to give up and say "God did it" when one simply does not know. One is left with the "God of the gaps" when one does that. In the beginning "God" explains everything (actually it is not a real explanation, just a handy catch all). What causes lightning and thunder? God. What causes the rainbow" God. How are are mountains formed? God. The only problem when one does that is that version of "God" is constantly shrinking. The God of the Gaps is the version of God that keeps getting smaller and smaller as we learn more and more. It is better to simply say "we don't know" and not use that as an excuse for a God existing than to claim "God did it" and to later find that it was a natural process. That version of God shrinks a bit every time that an explanation is found. Perhaps that is why creationists hate the theory of evolution so much. It does not "refute God". But it does shrink a version of god that was incorrect to start with.
Smart people believe all kinds of weird things. I suggest you read Shermer's book to understand why.Why do I pick the least likely option?
Because I like to think I'm intelligent enough not to follow a liar, lunatic or legend?!
See. I believe in the easiest answer too....
There are ways to verify.
You're funny.Smart people believe all kinds of weird things. I suggest you read Shermer's book to understand why.
Why People Believe Weird Things - Wikipedia
Of all people, it's easiest to fool ourselves.
By "easy" I mean most likely.
Yes! This is what I'm interested in.
What's the best way I can verify your claims?
There are quite a few you might be interested in.Which book? I missed it.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?