Fun Stuff > BAND
Folk Music and the Environment
John Curtin:
--- Quote from: Scandanavian War Machine on 25 Jan 2008, 16:12 ---
on infinite space and time: space goes on forever; real talk. but remember what space is: space is empty; it's absolutely nothing. sometimes there is matter floating in it.
so space goes on forever, but the matter within space only goes out so far.
--- End quote ---
There's really no reason to believe space goes on infinitely. It might, it might not. However, if it is infinite, it probably is filled with matter pretty evenly for that infinite expanse. The big bang theory doesn't describe the creation of matter within an existing space; the theory is that space itself was created in the big bang, along with time and all the energy in the universe. The energy/matter was created within all the space that was created.
There is empirical evidence for the universe being homogenously full of matter too! The cosmic microwave background, which is the "echo" (for want of a better word?) of the big bang, is pretty much the same in every direction. So, yeah, if there is infinite space, there is an infinite amount of matter in that space. Of course, as I said, there might not be infinite space. There's a lot we don't know about the shape of the universe; whether it's infinite or finite, flat, curved positively like a kind of three dimensional sphere or curved negatively like a kind of three dimensional saddle.
--- Quote ---instead of thinking about our universe as everything there is, try thinking about it as just a really, really big galaxy which is seperated by unfathomable amounts of space from other galaxies (other universes). they are so far from each other that they can never interact with each other (i say never loosely because honestly, who knows?).
--- End quote ---
umm?
--- Quote ---infinite time? well, i just don't know. i'm almost positive that time can't end but it will require more thought.
--- End quote ---
The universe will almost certainly come to an "end" of sorts. So there isn't actually an infinite amount of time for all possibilities to arise. Thermodynamics is a bitch like that.
supersheep:
--- Quote from: Eagleton ---"in one sense of that word it would be perfectly coherent for religious types to claim that God does not in fact exist. He is, rather, the condition of possibility of any entity whatsoever, including ourselves. He is the answer to why there is something rather than nothing. God and the universe do not add up to two, any more than my envy and my left foot constitute a pair of objects."
--- End quote ---
This is begging the question! If you define God as the necessary condition for existence, then of course God exists, but this is an even more pointless task than Aquinas' First Way - you've proved something that has to be, and then defining it as god. Also I have never come across this definition.
On reflection, using the word being is a bad choice - it doesn't convey the sense of being part of the universe itself while also being in some way a separate entity. God is not the universe, but they are intrinsically linked in some way by being similar. Is that what you're getting at here? So the way in which the flying pink unicorns differ from God is the property of being part of the universe? I don't see them as being a strawman - to me both are invisible insubstantial 'entities' (using a very loose definition of the word entity), so I want to find out how they differ from one another.
As for free will, I've seen people try to explain choice by appeals to either quantum indeterminacy or the many-worlds hypothesis. Whether these are convincing or not I don't know, but they are possibilities that work within science. The identical visions you and your friends saw could have been caused by a particular trigger external to you all, or perhaps your brain convinced itself that what your friend described was what it saw, or so on. There are potential physical explanations for it that do not need to appeal to external spiritual factors - we just haven't developed a theory for them yet, we can only provide ad hoc hypotheses.
And I don't think talking philosophy here is a pointless enterprise - it's pretty much the only place you can have this discussion.
Also, THANKS KATIE!
Jackie Blue:
--- Quote from: supersheep on 26 Jan 2008, 05:18 ---As for free will, I've seen people try to explain choice by appeals to either quantum indeterminacy or the many-worlds hypothesis. Whether these are convincing or not I don't know, but they are possibilities that work within science.
--- End quote ---
Not really. Free Will is still a flying pink unicorn that people choose to believe in without any scientific evidence whatsoever.
Atoms and molecules interact with each other, as far as we know, in entirely predictable ways or in entirely probabilistic ways. Neither option provides an explanation for if "choice" exists. In order for free will - choice - to exist, there has to be some evidence that our brains are physically capable of affecting the way atoms and molecules interact. There is no such evidence inside the realm of hard science.
Believing in Free Will is just as faith-based as believing in God, karma, fate or destiny. It is a convenient belief that makes people feel good but that has even less scientific basic, since there have in fact been studies which suggest that Free Will can be influenced by stimulation of certain parts of the brain.
Johnny C:
--- Quote from: supersheep on 26 Jan 2008, 05:18 ---On reflection, using the word being is a bad choice - it doesn't convey the sense of being part of the universe itself while also being in some way a separate entity. God is not the universe, but they are intrinsically linked in some way by being similar. Is that what you're getting at here? So the way in which the flying pink unicorns differ from God is the property of being part of the universe? I don't see them as being a strawman - to me both are invisible insubstantial 'entities' (using a very loose definition of the word entity), so I want to find out how they differ from one another.
--- End quote ---
They're two separate things. I understand your point - you can't see either of them so why assume they exist? It is, however, one thing to assume that tiny, physically impossible animals somehow exist at a sub-atomic level and another thing to assume that an omnipotent extra-organic force somehow exists above and beyond our plane. It's a strawman because you've somewhat represented theists' and agnostics' beliefs as the notion that God is hiding just behind every molecule and having a chuckle that we can't see him.
I dunno. At this stage of my life the only conclusion I can come to about God is that it's a notion completely beyond our comprehension and no amount of saying "here's why he doesn't exist" and clapping ourselves on the back can really change that, because an omnipotent being would be so far beyond our scope. I said this up earlier in the thread:
--- Quote from: Johnny C on 25 Jan 2008, 19:14 ---If God's supposed to be taken on faith, would God design a universe where He or She could be proven to either exist or not exist?
--- End quote ---
What makes us assume that an omnipotent being operates by our set of principles? What makes us think that God is just a big thing kinda like us that we can comprehend? This might have worked for the Greeks whose gods were essentially just big jerks living up on a mountain, but that's very different from the modern concept of God in Western monotheism.
pilsner:
--- Quote from: zerodrone on 26 Jan 2008, 06:18 ---Not really. Free Will is still a flying pink unicorn that people choose to believe in without any scientific evidence whatsoever.
Atoms and molecules interact with each other, as far as we know, in entirely predictable ways or in entirely probabilistic ways. Neither option provides an explanation for if "choice" exists. In order for free will - choice - to exist, there has to be some evidence that our brains are physically capable of affecting the way atoms and molecules interact. There is no such evidence inside the realm of hard science.
Believing in Free Will is just as faith-based as believing in God, karma, fate or destiny. It is a convenient belief that makes people feel good but that has even less scientific basic, since there have in fact been studies which suggest that Free Will can be influenced by stimulation of certain parts of the brain.
--- End quote ---
Respectfully, I don't believe you understand the fundamentals of the scientific method. No rational person says "I will believe only that which I can scientifically prove exists." Instead, a rational person says: "I will observe the world and try, to the extent possible, to find logically consistent theories to explain that which I observed." A scientist observes her own apparent capacity of self-awareness and to make decisions. A number of competing theories are apparent explaining this capacity. Is it an exceptionally complex interactions of hormones, electric discharge between neurons, and external stimuli which create these observed phenomena? The scientist may accept this as the contours of a theory even while admitting that the exact workings of this mechanism are not known and perhaps may never be fully understood.
In other words, the fact that science does not currently offer a complete explanation for a phenomenon does not mean a supernatural explanation is acceptable. For instance: science does not currently explain what occurred prior to the Big Bang. There are theories, but no evidence. Science does not currently explain why the energy and matter in the universe observable through gravitational effects is 96% larger than than the energy and matter observable through electromagnetic radiation. Science does not currently provide a model for quantum interactions consistent with a model for nuclear interactions.
So what? Maybe someday, science will provide the answers. Maybe humankind will never develop sophisticated enough models to account for these phenomenae. Maybe the evidence for such models no longer exists. Every scientist will admit that these holes exist. Few would agree that they are philosophically problematic.
--- Quote from: Johhny C ---What makes us assume that an omnipotent being operates by our set of principles? What makes us think that God is just a big thing kinda like us that we can comprehend? This might have worked for the Greeks whose gods were essentially just big jerks living up on a mountain, but that's very different from the modern concept of God in Western monotheism.
--- End quote ---
But modern Western Monotheism encompasses a whole bunch of mutually inconsistent beliefs. This Harris poll found that:
--- Quote from: Harris Poll ---The 82 percent of adults who believe in God include 86 percent of women and 93 percent of Republicans but only 78 percent of men, 69 percent of those with postgraduate degrees, and 75 percent of political independents.
The 73 percent of adults who believe in miracles include 79 percent of women, 83 percent of those with high school education or less and 76 percent of Republicans. Fewer (66%) men, post graduates (50%) and Independents (65%) believe in miracles.
The 70 percent of those who believe in the survival of the soul after death include 74 percent of women, 82 percent of Republicans but only 66 percent of men. Three-quarters (76%) of those without a college degree share this belief but only 53 percent of those with postgraduate degrees believe in this.
The 70 percent who believe in heaven includes 76 percent of women and 64 percent of men. This falls to 60 percent of Independents and 49 percent among people with postgraduate degrees.
Seven in ten (70%) believe that Jesus is God or the son of God. This belief is more prevalent among women (75%) than men (64%), among those with less education (77%) than among post graduates (48%) and among Republicans (82%) than Independents (62%).
--- End quote ---
Assuming for the sake of argument that this poll does accurately describe the beliefs of a majority of Americans, how can these beliefs be consistent with the transcendental conception of God that you claim is the "modern concept of God in Western monotheism"?
To the theists and agnostics participating in this conversation, I ask you:
(1) Do you believe that there have been events on Earth inexplicable by the laws of physics, and caused by God?
(2) Do you believe that there have been instructions, communicated by God to man, which provide, directly or through interpretation, an irrefutable basis to guide or judge moral decisions?
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version