Comments on: RE: There Is No God http://religiousfreaks.com/2005/12/04/re-there-is-no-god/ Have faith in yourself Sat, 6 Sep 2008 02:50:13 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.1 By: national flood insurance plan http://religiousfreaks.com/2005/12/04/re-there-is-no-god/#comment-217116 national flood insurance plan Mon, 01 Sep 2008 04:46:07 +0000 http://religiousfreaks.com/?p=51#comment-217116 <strong>national flood insurance plan...</strong> Brewster unveiling detach!mildew ... national flood insurance plan…

Brewster unveiling detach!mildew …

]]> By: MarcDLS http://religiousfreaks.com/2005/12/04/re-there-is-no-god/#comment-197790 MarcDLS Thu, 24 Jul 2008 00:36:40 +0000 http://religiousfreaks.com/?p=51#comment-197790 I am a realist for the majority of cases, however I do acknowledge that what we understand of science and reality is continually evolving. Take, for example, the new model for the atom and the hydrino that has emerged in the new millennium. I do not have a reply for Reppert's statement, but it makes more sense to me to hold to physicalism rather than believe in a God. God makes less sense to me that trying to explain "reason in terms of something nonrational." I am a realist for the majority of cases, however I do acknowledge that what we understand of science and reality is continually evolving. Take, for example, the new model for the atom and the hydrino that has emerged in the new millennium. I do not have a reply for Reppert’s statement, but it makes more sense to me to hold to physicalism rather than believe in a God. God makes less sense to me that trying to explain “reason in terms of something nonrational.”

]]> By: Neando http://religiousfreaks.com/2005/12/04/re-there-is-no-god/#comment-195378 Neando Thu, 17 Jul 2008 23:23:14 +0000 http://religiousfreaks.com/?p=51#comment-195378 If you are a physicalist, i.e., a naturalist with regard to human persons as with everything else, you will hold to the "closure thesis" that the system of physics is closed and that only physics can explain where any particle is at any time. Also that physics is mechanistic and not purposive, and that all states in time and space, whether electrochemical, biological or psychological, are fully explicable by physics. This means that your consciousness and awareness of your own existence, apparent ability to "decide what to do now," your processing of data presented to your senses, your beliefs about the world, etc., are all explicable in terms of physics. All are but a part of a causal chain of events that operate according to the laws of physics. And if you are part of a causal chain, all that you are is an effect. That your thoughts appear to correspond to others could simply be that the thoughts you and they have in common have some common causes in the chain. Not that you perceive them in any transcendent way. It is not like Descartes, he held to a form of dualism. He held that his mind could cause events in the world and that his thoughts about the world could be true or false. He did not hold that his mind was merely an effect of physical processes. Marc, I am not questioning the fact of your experiencing and cognition of reality, but how it is that you speak as a realist (as I am) and yet believe as a physicalist. How, from a physicalist POV can our "thoughts cause one another in virtue of their content and of the logical relationships in which they stand?" (Reppert) If you are a physicalist, i.e., a naturalist with regard to human persons as with everything else, you will hold to the “closure thesis” that the system of physics is closed and that only physics can explain where any particle is at any time. Also that physics is mechanistic and not purposive, and that all states in time and space, whether electrochemical, biological or psychological, are fully explicable by physics.

This means that your consciousness and awareness of your own existence, apparent ability to “decide what to do now,” your processing of data presented to your senses, your beliefs about the world, etc., are all explicable in terms of physics. All are but a part of a causal chain of events that operate according to the laws of physics. And if you are part of a causal chain, all that you are is an effect.

That your thoughts appear to correspond to others could simply be that the thoughts you and they have in common have some common causes in the chain. Not that you perceive them in any transcendent way.

It is not like Descartes, he held to a form of dualism. He held that his mind could cause events in the world and that his thoughts about the world could be true or false. He did not hold that his mind was merely an effect of physical processes.

Marc, I am not questioning the fact of your experiencing and cognition of reality, but how it is that you speak as a realist (as I am) and yet believe as a physicalist. How, from a physicalist POV can our “thoughts cause one another in virtue of their content and of the logical relationships in which they stand?” (Reppert)

]]> By: MarcDLS http://religiousfreaks.com/2005/12/04/re-there-is-no-god/#comment-194708 MarcDLS Wed, 16 Jul 2008 15:53:20 +0000 http://religiousfreaks.com/?p=51#comment-194708 I use them therefore they are there. That's the beauty of physics. It runs along the same train of thought as "I think therefore I am," Rene Descartes. Since we have nothing else to use, only each other to gain perspective from, and since we all use the same senses, then what we perceive is what we have for reality. That is how I know my perceptions of the listed things are of or about anything. They are, in fact, everything. A great example of something being because man believes is The Philip Experiment. As far as my quote goes, I don't see how it could not fit into a physicalist POV since it deals with the physical substance of things. We are here, we make decisions, therefore it is our decision as to what we will do while we are here. I use them therefore they are there. That’s the beauty of physics. It runs along the same train of thought as “I think therefore I am,” Rene Descartes. Since we have nothing else to use, only each other to gain perspective from, and since we all use the same senses, then what we perceive is what we have for reality. That is how I know my perceptions of the listed things are of or about anything. They are, in fact, everything. A great example of something being because man believes is The Philip Experiment.

As far as my quote goes, I don’t see how it could not fit into a physicalist POV since it deals with the physical substance of things. We are here, we make decisions, therefore it is our decision as to what we will do while we are here.

]]> By: Neando http://religiousfreaks.com/2005/12/04/re-there-is-no-god/#comment-194429 Neando Wed, 16 Jul 2008 06:17:38 +0000 http://religiousfreaks.com/?p=51#comment-194429 How do you know that the perceptions you have in your mind of time, personal identity, mathematics, logic, models, sensory data, etc., are of or about anything? You said "Fact is, we are here and it’s up to us to decide what we do now." How, from a physicalist POV, does this proposition stack up? How do you know that the perceptions you have in your mind of time, personal identity, mathematics, logic, models, sensory data, etc., are of or about anything?

You said “Fact is, we are here and it’s up to us to decide what we do now.” How, from a physicalist POV, does this proposition stack up?

]]> By: MarcDLS http://religiousfreaks.com/2005/12/04/re-there-is-no-god/#comment-193636 MarcDLS Mon, 14 Jul 2008 22:09:02 +0000 http://religiousfreaks.com/?p=51#comment-193636 Because a linear time line is an illogical model, and because of that the idea that your destiny if fixed is also illogical. Let me describe to you a simple model. You have a particle that is moving in a given direction making lefts and rights. A right has a value of 1 and a left has a value of 2. Now, as you can see 1+2 equals 3 just like 2+1 equals 3. There are two possible paths to the same point. This continuity continues indefinitely 1+2+2+1+2 equal 8 just like 2+1+1+2+2 equals 8. Simple because your perception of time is linear does not mean that the other paths do not exist simultaneously. Because a linear time line is an illogical model, and because of that the idea that your destiny if fixed is also illogical. Let me describe to you a simple model. You have a particle that is moving in a given direction making lefts and rights. A right has a value of 1 and a left has a value of 2. Now, as you can see 1+2 equals 3 just like 2+1 equals 3. There are two possible paths to the same point. This continuity continues indefinitely 1+2+2+1+2 equal 8 just like 2+1+1+2+2 equals 8. Simple because your perception of time is linear does not mean that the other paths do not exist simultaneously.

]]> By: Neando http://religiousfreaks.com/2005/12/04/re-there-is-no-god/#comment-193240 Neando Mon, 14 Jul 2008 11:07:55 +0000 http://religiousfreaks.com/?p=51#comment-193240 How does anything at all matter including yourself and your beliefs and an assumed responsibility or freedom to decide your own destiny? How does anything at all matter including yourself and your beliefs and an assumed responsibility or freedom to decide your own destiny?

]]> By: MarcDLS http://religiousfreaks.com/2005/12/04/re-there-is-no-god/#comment-192981 MarcDLS Mon, 14 Jul 2008 00:08:22 +0000 http://religiousfreaks.com/?p=51#comment-192981 I believe that it doesn't matter either way how it got here. Fact is, we are here and it's up to us to decide what we do now. I believe that it doesn’t matter either way how it got here. Fact is, we are here and it’s up to us to decide what we do now.

]]> By: Neando http://religiousfreaks.com/2005/12/04/re-there-is-no-god/#comment-192939 Neando Sun, 13 Jul 2008 23:40:19 +0000 http://religiousfreaks.com/?p=51#comment-192939 Marc, so you believe in a self-caused universe? Marc, so you believe in a self-caused universe?

]]> By: MarcDLS http://religiousfreaks.com/2005/12/04/re-there-is-no-god/#comment-192877 MarcDLS Sun, 13 Jul 2008 21:04:27 +0000 http://religiousfreaks.com/?p=51#comment-192877 In my studies of M Theory and Black Holes I had an interesting thought...doesn't the Big Bang sound an awfully lot like a black hole evaporating? If that is the case then in the observable universe, every Sun that has enough mass could at sometime in the future create a new Universe. One might ask "Well, who created the first Bang to set the other Bangs in motion?" I would ask in response, "Would the answer affect who and what you are right now?" It is my observation that if there is no God then there is no point in believing in it. It there is a God, it is my observation that it has really screwed the pooch on this one and doesn't deserve to be believed in. In my studies of M Theory and Black Holes I had an interesting thought…doesn’t the Big Bang sound an awfully lot like a black hole evaporating? If that is the case then in the observable universe, every Sun that has enough mass could at sometime in the future create a new Universe. One might ask “Well, who created the first Bang to set the other Bangs in motion?” I would ask in response, “Would the answer affect who and what you are right now?”

It is my observation that if there is no God then there is no point in believing in it. It there is a God, it is my observation that it has really screwed the pooch on this one and doesn’t deserve to be believed in.

]]>