How do you define eternity?

[Nick Soapdish]

I tend to agree that anything material cannot be infinite and is measurable in some way or anther. Something that is "eternal" cannot be measured and transcends our conceptions of math and time. Our perceptions and awareness are completely dependent on the passage of time and we cannot imagine an existence that doesn't include time.

Perhaps eternity is a "state" of existence outside of time.

"The Fourth Dimension is just one big crazy do not enter clambake jungle of weirdity -- and how does it work? Never mind!" - The Tick

 

[love]

It's just a matter of divorcing yourself from "nanoseconds," and all seconds.

You're number one.

Time in the physical realm is unfortunately unavoidable. Our days in this state of being do have a definite number. Your body will go back to the dust it once was.
I remember from a science class that matter can be changed but it cannot be destroyed. This seems to have infinite possibilities.
A pile of dust would have little use without the essence of life that makes you who you are.
Will your spirit go to nothingness while your dust remains?

 

[Willamena]

Time in the physical realm is unfortunately unavoidable. Our days in this state of being do have a definite number. Your body will go back to the dust it once was.
I remember from a science class that matter can be changed but it cannot be destroyed. This seems to have infinite possibilities.
A pile of dust would have little use without the essence of life that makes you who you are.
Will your spirit go to nothingness while your dust remains?

Those are things. Time is a thing. Divorce yourself from things, even for a moment.

Spirit does not differ from nothingness. "Form does not differ from emptiness."

 

[love]

Time does not exist but now. All we can do is measure it.

 

[s2a]

Interesting.

As expected, no one that "believes" in the concept of "eternity" can actually define or explain the concept in any relatable terms or concrete conditions.

Why would anyone accept as "truth" a "concept" that defies any/all human understanding or explanation?

Even an undefinable "something", that supposedly "exists (everlastingly)" beyond all of human comprehension or vernacular definition, is in/at/within a "somewhere".

If a conceptual "eternity" transcends the absolute entirety of any readily experienced and observable cosmic "reality", then why would any rational thinking person accept such a notion/concept as undeniable fact?

What sort of inherent capacities of human logic are served in such beliefs?

"Because 'it' (the "eternity" concept) supersedes any and all available evidences or burdened proofs, that very lack of same (therefore) presents a compelling and unalterable "truth" of unimaginable "fact".

Yet, we put people in rubber rooms whenever they insistently claim to personally interact with invisible and fluidly conversant 6 foot tall rabbits.

I'm reminded of the parenting tool implemented in treating with insistently inquisitive children.

"You wouldn't understand. It's complicated. Trust me, and 'believe' that what I tell you is 'true', primarily because I say so. Eternity exists, dammit. It just does. Trust me."

I did then...(sort of).

Time's up. Either define what "eternity" IS, in no uncertain and understandable/relatable terms, or just introduce me to your "invisible" cuniculus cohort....

 

[Nick Soapdish]

Interesting.

As expected, no one that "believes" in the concept of "eternity" can actually define or explain the concept in any relatable terms or concrete conditions.

Why would anyone accept as "truth" a "concept" that defies any/all human understanding or explanation?

Even an undefinable "something", that supposedly "exists (everlastingly)" beyond all of human comprehension or vernacular definition, is in/at/within a "somewhere".

If a conceptual "eternity" transcends the absolute entirety of any readily experienced and observable cosmic "reality", then why would any rational thinking person accept such a notion/concept as undeniable fact?

What sort of inherent capacities of human logic are served in such beliefs?

"Because 'it' (the "eternity" concept) supersedes any and all available evidences or burdened proofs, that very lack of same (therefore) presents a compelling and unalterable "truth" of unimaginable "fact".

Yet, we put people in rubber rooms whenever they insistently claim to personally interact with invisible and fluidly conversant 6 foot tall rabbits.

I'm reminded of the parenting tool implemented in treating with insistently inquisitive children.

"You wouldn't understand. It's complicated. Trust me, and 'believe' that what I tell you is 'true', primarily because I say so. Eternity exists, dammit. It just does. Trust me."

I did then...(sort of).

Time's up. Either define what "eternity" IS, in no uncertain and understandable/relatable terms, or just introduce me to your "invisible" cuniculus cohort....

Why does something have to be part of our world experience and observation to be considered "true"? You may not believe in special revelation, but you certainly can't demonstrate that special revelation does not exist.

Also, does something need to be expressible in language to be considered "true"? Can you describe the taste of crab in "no uncertain and understandable/relatable terms" to someone who cannot taste or smell food? Does this mean you don't know what crab tastes like?

 

[s2a]

Why does something have to be part of our world experience and observation to be considered "true"? You may not believe in special revelation, but you certainly can't demonstrate that special revelation does not exist.

Just as you can not substantiate such a claim of any "special revelation".

I would invite skeptics to doubt both of our claims as unfounded.

Also, does something need to be expressible in language to be considered "true"?

Perhaps not as "true", but at least as being relatable, definable, and comprehensible. I'd settle for reasonable, burdened proofs of evidence and impartial/independent verifications/validations as acceptable explanations of discernible "fact". Is that an unfair or unreasonable standard?

Perhaps since the dawn of any civilized culture, there have existed self-proclaimed "conjurors", or "magicians". If the audience is dumbfounded by the illusion/performance, and demands answer to "How did you do that?"...should we then "believe" the magician that cites/claims the "power of magic" as a veritable and real natural phenomena?

Can you describe the taste of crab in "no uncertain and understandable/relatable terms" to someone who cannot taste or smell food?

No...no more that I can describe the color "red" to a person born sightless.

However, a blind person's diminished capacities of sense and available related comparisons do not serve to obliterate nor obviate the remaining inherent capacities of sight that most humans enjoy. The color "red"...exists...and ANYONE that shares my own sensory abilities of sight can share in the observation of something "red".

Please note that in this related metaphor, that the "taste of crab" is NOT one particular experience that is either rare, or utterly beyond ANYONE's capacity of personalized encounters, or any/all available definitions.

Does this mean you don't know what crab tastes like?

Perhaps not, but I can still envision and interact with a crab...in the here and now. I don't know what a bowling ball "tastes like", but I can still roll a strike with one.

 

[sojourner]

Why would anyone accept as "truth" a "concept" that defies any/all human understanding or explanation?

Because many of us believe that the buck does not stop with humanity and our capability to understand. Just because at some point, we didn't understand the shape of the earth does not mean that the earth was not round.

 

[Nick Soapdish]

Just as you can not substantiate such a claim of any "special revelation".

I would invite skeptics to doubt both of our claims as unfounded.

I agree

Perhaps not as "true", but at least as being relatable, definable, and comprehensible. I'd settle for reasonable, burdened proofs of evidence and impartial/independent verifications/validations as acceptable explanations of discernible "fact". Is that an unfair or unreasonable standard?

I can certainly see the appeal of a world-view in which all knowledge of truth must be derived from physical evidence. But just because it is appealing does not mean that it is correct. I have inner sense of freewill and awareness that does not agree with such a world-view and in the absence of and other compelling reason, I must follow my intuition about what is true.

Perhaps since the dawn of any civilized culture, there have existed self-proclaimed "conjurors", or "magicians". If the audience is dumbfounded by the illusion/performance, and demands answer to "How did you do that?"...should we then "believe" the magician that cites/claims the "power of magic" as a veritable and real natural phenomena?

No of course not. Skepticism has an important role. We have to judge which is more likely; the magician is performing a trick, or the magician has gained access to some supernatural/magical ability?

 

[s2a]

I can certainly see the appeal of a world-view in which all knowledge of truth must be derived from physical evidence.

Good. ;-)

But just because it is appealing does not mean that it is correct.

I know. Kinda like the claims of religion...that tend to insist they are "correct/true".

The idea/concept of "living 'forever'", or in some personally transcendent "state" of "being" is undeniably "appealing" to anyone that has ever posed the "eternal" questions inherent to all sentient species:
"Is this all there is?"
"Why am I here?"
"What happens when I die?"

Religion presumes to answer such questions definitively; as proffered statements/proclamations/testimonials of unequivocal and incontestable "truths".

Needless to say...skeptics abound and persist in the midst of such insistent declarations, despite the obvious and natural attractions to piously/faithfully accept such claims as being utterly incorruptible truths.

I wonder why...

I have that does not agree with such a world-view and in the absence of and other compelling reason, I must follow my intuition about what is true.

I too share your "inner sense of freewill and awareness". Ain't we cool and confident?

But let's just suppose, for a moment, that your "intuition" (or intellectual estimation) leads you to conclude that supernatural deities/forces/spirits/entities ...don't really "exist".

Is your "inner sense of freewill and awareness" enhanced by that realization, or is it diminished?

Skepticism has an important role. We have to judge which is more likely; the magician is performing a trick, or the magician has gained access to some supernatural/magical ability?

Indeed.

Which IS most likely?

Does the "magician" actually possess some "supernatural/magical ability", or is one magician but another of a long line of masterful (but quite naturally human) illusionists?

Which "explanation" seems more likely to be "true", knowing what you know?

Is magic and/or supernatural cause the more "likely", or even the best available "answer" for phenomena that eludes immediate explanation? Is the concept of illusion and wishful thinking too remote to even contemplate as reasoned alternative?

In the utter absence of requisite faith...is there any "reason" whatsoever to "believe" in any claim that produces no testable evidences; no available rebuttal "witnesses"; no credible arguments of any kind beyond; "If you [only] believe in magic, it becomes real"?

 

[Nick Soapdish]

Religion presumes to answer such questions definitively; as proffered statements/proclamations/testimonials of unequivocal and incontestable "truths".

Needless to say...skeptics abound and persist in the midst of such insistent declarations, despite the obvious and natural attractions to piously/faithfully accept such claims as being utterly incorruptible truths.

I understand what you are saying, but the lack of physical evidence or absolute definition of a theological concept is not a reason to deny such claims unless a person accepts the presumption of naturalism.

I too share your "inner sense of freewill and awareness". Ain't we cool and confident?

But let's just suppose, for a moment, that your "intuition" (or intellectual estimation) leads you to conclude that supernatural deities/forces/spirits/entities ...don't really "exist".

Is your "inner sense of freewill and awareness" enhanced by that realization, or is it diminished?

The point is that my intellectual estimation cannot conclude that supernatural things don't exist because of my inner sense of freewill and awareness. I must start with the assumption that my being is not all mechanical matter. Logic would dictate that any intellectual wandering that led me to naturalism would be a contradiction to this fundamental assumption.

Which IS most likely?

Does the "magician" actually possess some "supernatural/magical ability", or is one magician but another of a long line of masterful (but quite naturally human) illusionists?

Which "explanation" seems more likely to be "true", knowing what you know?

Is magic and/or supernatural cause the more "likely", or even the best available "answer" for phenomena that eludes immediate explanation? Is the concept of illusion and wishful thinking too remote to even contemplate as reasoned alternative?

In the utter absence of requisite faith...is there any "reason" whatsoever to "believe" in any claim that produces no testable evidences; no available rebuttal "witnesses"; no credible arguments of any kind beyond; "If you [only] believe in magic, it becomes real"?

The illusionist is easy to dismiss because of our strong, modern understanding of what humans are physically capable of. Of course, it may not have been so easy to dismiss 500 years ago.

However, spiritualism is not as easily dismissed, even in our current understanding of the physical world. I find that a nature that created itself is impossible, and that there must be an infinite, omnipotent entity that has constructed space, time, matter/energy and the laws that govern them.

 

[Random]

Eternity is creation without time. It is always "now".

 

[s2a]

Hello Nick Soapdish,

When I said:
Religion presumes to answer such questions definitively; as proffered statements/proclamations/testimonials of unequivocal and incontestable "truths".
Needless to say...skeptics abound and persist in the midst of such insistent declarations, despite the obvious and natural attractions to piously/faithfully accept such claims as being utterly incorruptible truths.

You replied:

I understand what you are saying, but the lack of physical evidence or absolute definition of a theological concept is not a reason to deny such claims...

I don't deny the claims. I just don't conclude that such claims present any sufficiently compelling substantiations to rationalize a "belief" that they are "true" beyond reasonable doubts.

Consider...
If you look (appear) sixty years old (and further objective medical examinations validate that estimation), but you claim to be ten years old; I would tend to doubt your claim (and fairly so). Put another way, I don't believe your claim has any merit or foundation in meeting burdened proofs/evidence...unless you can provide some. Your "claim" (or "belief") that you are "truly" ten years old is not "disclaimed" by any "denial" that I might put forward. Lacking substantive support, your claim is simply not credible to me, no matter how much YOU believe it to be "true".

...unless a person accepts the presumption of naturalism.

Are you referring to the "presumptive" philosophical perspective, or the presumptive theological perspective regarding "naturalism"?

I doubt claims that present little more than "trust me" testimonials and anecdotes as validations of claimed "absolute truths" or undeniable "fact". You are invited to ask a self-professed adherent of naturalism what presumptions they operate from for themselves.

I posed:
But let's just suppose, for a moment, that your "intuition" (or intellectual estimation) leads you to conclude that supernatural deities/forces/spirits/entities ...don't really "exist".
Is your "inner sense of freewill and awareness" enhanced by that realization, or is it diminished?

The point is that my intellectual estimation cannot conclude that supernatural things don't exist because of my inner sense of freewill and awareness.

Seems like a "one way" street of linear thinking to me. Human freethought and self-awareness therefore "evidence" the supernatural?

I must start with the assumption that my being is not all mechanical matter.

Um, why (pending further definition of what you feel constitutes "mechanical matter")? Is it that otherwise, all assumptions/conclusions that follow the initial premise then fall apart? That may be "logical" (to you)...but it appears as poor foundation to build a case to me.

Logic would dictate that any intellectual wandering that led me to naturalism would be a contradiction to this fundamental assumption.

It might at that, within a convoluted sense of constricted reason.

If you can't "imagine" a "natural" cosmos existing without supernatural cause/effect explanations, then you must..."logically"...conclude that (in fact) the cosmos can not exist without some sort of supernatural force/entity/deity. Perhaps this rationale defines the concept of "faith" better than most other definitions. I can envision both "possibilities". However, I do not employ the logic of faith to rationalize my reasoned doubts (or validate my "beliefs") regarding the claims of supernatural cause/effect explanations.

I inquired:
Which IS most likely?
Does the "magician" actually possess some "supernatural/magical ability", or is one magician but another of a long line of masterful (but quite naturally human) illusionists?
Which "explanation" seems more likely to be "true", knowing what you know?
Is magic and/or supernatural cause the more "likely", or even the best available "answer" for phenomena that eludes immediate explanation? Is the concept of illusion and wishful thinking too remote to even contemplate as reasoned alternative?
In the utter absence of requisite faith...is there any "reason" whatsoever to "believe" in any claim that produces no testable evidences; no available rebuttal "witnesses"; no credible arguments of any kind beyond; "If you [only] believe in magic, it becomes real"?

You said:

The illusionist is easy to dismiss because of our strong, modern understanding of what humans are physically capable of. Of course, it may not have been so easy to dismiss 500 years ago.

Both true, but you didn't really tackle the substance of what I was addressing.

Recall that you posed..."Skepticism has an important role. We have to judge which is more likely; the magician is performing a trick, or the magician has gained access to some supernatural/magical ability?"

Which (of the two presented possibilities) is more (or most) likely to be "true"? Why?

However, spiritualism is not as easily dismissed, even in our current understanding of the physical world. I find that a nature that created itself is impossible, and that there must be an infinite, omnipotent entity that has constructed space, time, matter/energy and the laws that govern them.

Spiritualism is easily dismissed...but that fact alone doesn't serve to invalidate faith-based beliefs and claims. Then again, any insistent claims of "truth" or "fact" (regarding attested "paranormal", "mystical", "psychic", or supernatural "phenomena") are borne by the claimant themselves to substantiate, not for the skeptic to "disprove". Burdens of proof are the claimant's to bear and meet, and not upon the doubting and unbelieving to either provide or validate

I consider yours a sincere testimonial of your faith...but not an especially argument to "believe" that claims of supernatural entities/deities is "most likely to be true".

The funny thing about people that really "believe" in magic? No matter how many times you show them how the illusion is performed...they still want to believe that the next illusion is "the real thing".

 

[Scuba Pete]

What does the concept of "eternity" mean to you?

Waiting for my daughter to finish getting ready in the bathroom.

 

[Nick Soapdish]

If you look (appear) sixty years old (and further objective medical examinations validate that estimation), but you claim to be ten years old; I would tend to doubt your claim (and fairly so). Put another way, I don't believe your claim has any merit or foundation in meeting burdened proofs/evidence...unless you can provide some. Your "claim" (or "belief") that you are "truly" ten years old is not "disclaimed" by any "denial" that I might put forward. Lacking substantive support, your claim is simply not credible to me, no matter how much YOU believe it to be "true".

I believe your analogy is false because the claims of the supernatural do not have counter-evidence (like my 60-year-old appearance and objective medical examinations).

Seems like a "one way" street of linear thinking to me. Human freethought and self-awareness therefore "evidence" the supernatural?

Without any counter-evidence, yes.

Take the following ideas proposed by the naturalist:

1) Everything suddenly came from nothing.
2) Life was not designed, even though it appears otherwise.
3) The mind is just a bunch of gray matter

I believe many scientists have to talk themselves into these conclusions despite their intuition. They dislike the idea that the finger of God is involved in nature because they believe that places limits on what can be known. Many scientists like the idea that science is the ultimate form of knowledge and don't like the idea that it might have limits.

Once again, I am compelled to follow what "makes sense" based on what I know (following my intuition), rather than twist my view of things to get the desired outcome.

To me this means the Universe was created, life was designed, and my mind is a supernatural-agent. And so far, science has not provided significant evidence countering these intuitions, so I have no reason to doubt them.

Which (of the two presented possibilities) is more (or most) likely to be "true"? Why?

Based on my knowledge of modern science, the more likely possibility in my mind is that the illusionist is playing a trick.

The funny thing about people that really "believe" in magic? No matter how many times you show them how the illusion is performed...they still want to believe that the next illusion is "the real thing".

True. Imagine a football game where the home-team receiver catches the ball for a game winning touchdown, but it is not clear if his feet were in bounds. Fans of the home team will immediately cheer with the sincere belief the catch was legal while at the same instant the opposing-team fans will immediately proclaim it was an incomplete pass. How is it possible that people can interpret the same witnessed event so differently? Sometimes people just see what they want to see.

 

[s2a]

Hello NS,

When I presented:
If you look (appear) sixty years old (and further objective medical examinations validate that estimation), but you claim to be ten years old; I would tend to doubt your claim (and fairly so). Put another way, I don't believe your claim has any merit or foundation in meeting burdened proofs/evidence...unless you can provide some. Your "claim" (or "belief") that you are "truly" ten years old is not "disclaimed" by any "denial" that I might put forward. Lacking substantive support, your claim is simply not credible to me, no matter how much YOU believe it to be "true".

You rebutted:
I

believe your analogy is false because the claims of the supernatural do not have counter-evidence (like my 60-year-old appearance and objective medical examinations).

Your flawed conclusion is noted. The analogy serves well enough, and your evasion of it's explanatory nature of an atheistic/skeptical perspective regarding faith-based claims of fact" or "truth" remains unchallenged within your response.

I said:
Seems like a "one way" street of linear thinking to me. Human freethought and self-awareness therefore "evidence" the supernatural?

You offered:

Without any counter-evidence, yes.

Take the following ideas proposed by the naturalist:

1) Everything suddenly came from nothing.

I thought that was a particularly theistic view...

If "God" caused the cosmos "to happen" out of nothingness, then what caused "God" to exist?

2) Life was not designed, even though it appears otherwise.

Whoa.

VERY complex concept here. Birth and formation of stars may seem (or appear) "designed" or "complex", yet it's a commonly observable phenomena. There is NO provisional faith-based/extant evidence that suggests that a "god" is either necessary to, or involved in, such "natural" manifestations.

"Life" (as we know it) exists, and much of it's "design" defies satisfactory explanation.

Readily debatable....."design" implies a heavy burden of specified (or at least implied) "purpose", or "reason to be".

If faith-based claims of a divinely "created (and/or designed) life (form)" wish to establish legitimacy in such claims, adherents of such must present compelling substantiations as to just what reason or purpose such "designed" lifeforms existence serves to fulfill...within their own faith-based claims.

What is the "purpose" of Ebola fever? What "reason" of existence is "designed" into childhood leukemia?

3) The mind is just a bunch of gray matter.

C'mon.

These are your grandest indictments of a naturalist's perspective regarding human existence?

I believe many scientists have to talk themselves into these conclusions despite their intuition.

Good.

"Intuition" is an emotion-based supposition, predicated upon primal instincts (like fear, survival, and commonly errant guess).

"Intuition" is not scientific, nor does it present any valid substantiation of human reactions borne of guilt, ignorance, prejudice, or fear.

They dislike the idea that the finger of God is involved in nature because they believe that places limits on what can be known.

Bunk.

Show a scientist a lasting "fingerprint" of a god, and I'll show you a pursuing inquiry of investigation and measure unlike no other.

Ever met a die-hard Missourian? Mizzous say; "Don't tell me...show me."? If so, I'll introduce you to a legitimate "scientist".

Many scientists like the idea that science is the ultimate form of knowledge and don't like the idea that it might have limits.

MANY scientists? MANY?

I invite you to name just TEN (of the "many") most renowned and peer-reviewed "scientists" that CLAIM and PROMOTE the notion that "science is the ultimate form of knowledge and don't like the idea that it might have limits."

Just TEN. That's not many...

Once again, I am compelled to follow what "makes sense" based on what I know (following my intuition), rather than twist my view of things to get the desired outcome.

Interesting...and predictable.

Is it really more "logical" to presume a foregone conclusion of irreconcilable fact; than "God exists, and purposefully 'designed' the cosmos", as an "agent" of "initial cause"; than it might be to investigate the available evidence, and wonder upon the unfolding and dynamic cosmos as being a very natural phenomena? Is "human intuition" really the most reliable or consistent barometer/measure of either ascertainable fact or truth? Is it really?

To me this means the Universe was created, life was designed, and my mind is a supernatural-agent. And so far, science has not provided significant evidence countering these intuitions, so I have no reason to doubt them.

How convenient for you.

"Science" (as that monolithic, undefined, entity of intellectual inquiry) does not even bother to uncover, discover, or reveal ANY suitable or confirming "disproofs" of claims of invisible sentient beings/entities.

To relegate "science" as some failing advocate in this regard, seems as facile and futile a claim that "science" did not "reveal" the existence of Neptune or Uranus until the last 200 years or so. Both planets "existed" before they were "discovered" (by "science"), and had been humbly orbiting our sun for literally billions of years beforehand. "Faith" (in any "god") had revealed NOTHING of these veritably (and undeniably) existent planets.

NOTHING.
NADA.
ZIP.
ZERO.
NOTHING.

The ONLY response from adherents of faith-based claims is..."god made them...for a reason." The only proffered validation of that claim is, "I believe it to be so".

Good for them.

I remain skeptical...for all the right reasons...

I asked:
Which (of the two presented possibilities) is more (or most) likely to be "true"? Why?

Based on my knowledge of modern science, the more likely possibility in my mind is that the illusionist is playing a trick.

Good.

Now apply your "knowledge of modern science" to religious claims of "divine miracles", or resurrection of dead people. Square that circle, if you please.

I put:
The funny thing about people that really "believe" in magic? No matter how many times you show them how the illusion is performed...they still want to believe that the next illusion is "the real thing".

True. Imagine a football game where the home-team receiver catches the ball for a game winning touchdown, but it is not clear if his feet were in bounds. Fans of the home team will immediately cheer with the sincere belief the catch was legal while at the same instant the opposing-team fans will immediately proclaim it was an incomplete pass. How is it possible that people can interpret the same witnessed event so differently?

How? Because some folks allow their faith to interfere with their better judgement and objective evaluations of available evidences.

"Wishing" alone does not overcome incontrovertible evidences to the contrary, If "faith" were enough...then EVERY collegiate football team would win the national championship EVERY year.

Since it's more than plainly obvious that "fans" ( or faith-based adherents) can not (or do not) influence the ultimate outcomes of intensified football rivalries, why then should any "believer" attribute their faith as a righteously prevailing result? If both "sides" are pious and earnest in their "beliefs", why should either "side" ultimately prevail or fail?

If "faith" were allowed or permitted/accepted as some ultimate arbiter of accepted "fact" or "truth", then there would be little point in enjoining the "debate" of a football contest of two "faith-based" teams. Might as well give the trophy to any and all contenders with similarly faith-based motivations.

Sometimes people just see what they want to see.

How true.

The fair inquiry that follows such a s statement might be...is that really a good thing?

 

[Nick Soapdish]

I thought that was a particularly theistic view...

If "God" caused the cosmos "to happen" out of nothingness, then what caused "God" to exist?

How can something that is infinite and eternal have a "cause"? A material thing has specific dimensions and forms that necessitate a cause. But God has no measure or form.

God is the antithesis of nothing existing. He is the source of an infinite potential for creation and things to exist.

Whoa.

VERY complex concept here. Birth and formation of stars may seem (or appear) "designed" or "complex", yet it's a commonly observable phenomena. There is NO provisional faith-based/extant evidence that suggests that a "god" is either necessary to, or involved in, such "natural" manifestations.

Readily debatable....."design" implies a heavy burden of specified (or at least implied) "purpose", or "reason to be".

Unfortunately, I offer no burden of proof. Just a sense of absurdity that life can be caused through mindless, indifferent processes.

If faith-based claims of a divinely "created (and/or designed) life (form)" wish to establish legitimacy in such claims, adherents of such must present compelling substantiations as to just what reason or purpose such "designed" lifeforms existence serves to fulfill...within their own faith-based claims.

What is the "purpose" of Ebola fever? What "reason" of existence is "designed" into childhood leukemia?

We are branching off into all sorts of theological discussions, and these posts seem to be growing geometrically.

To put it briefly, suffering in general, is necessary for the human story. Without it, love would hold no value. Also, all things are reconciled after death.

C'mon.

These are your grandest indictments of a naturalist's perspective regarding human existence?

Yeah, the three that happen to tip my mind.

Good.

"Intuition" is an emotion-based supposition, predicated upon primal instincts (like fear, survival, and commonly errant guess).

"Intuition" is not scientific, nor does it present any valid substantiation of human reactions borne of guilt, ignorance, prejudice, or fear.

One of my favorite Einstein quotes: The only real valuable thing is intuition.

I do not understand how intuition can be considered an emotion? Like happiness, sadness or anger? That doesn't make sense.

And to suggest intuition is not related to science, or at least scientific discovery, I believe is misguided.

Bunk.

Show a scientist a lasting "fingerprint" of a god, and I'll show you a pursuing inquiry of investigation and measure unlike no other.

Ever met a die-hard Missourian? Mizzous say; "Don't tell me...show me."? If so, I'll introduce you to a legitimate "scientist".

The point is that many scientists appeal to methodological naturalism because they do not want to resort to the notion that "God did it, let's go home".

This is based on the idea that if an event has a supernatural cause, it cannot be understood by science. Science's domain is nature.

MANY scientists? MANY?

I invite you to name just TEN (of the "many") most renowned and peer-reviewed "scientists" that CLAIM and PROMOTE the notion that "science is the ultimate form of knowledge and don't like the idea that it might have limits."

Just TEN. That's not many...

My claim that "they don't like the idea that it might have limits" was inappropriate on my part, but here are some scientists that are logical positivists, and believe that experiential science is the only valid form of knowledge:

* Alfred Jules Ayer
* Rudolf Carnap
* Herbert Feigl
* Philipp Frank
* Kurt Grelling
* Hans Hahn
* Carl Gustav Hempel
* Ernest Nagel
* Otto Neurath
* Hans Reichenbach
* David Rynin
* Moritz Schlick
* Friedrich Waismann

There are many more, but I just lazily pulled these down from Wiki.

Interesting...and predictable.

Is it really more "logical" to presume a foregone conclusion of irreconcilable fact; than "God exists, and purposefully 'designed' the cosmos", as an "agent" of "initial cause"; than it might be to investigate the available evidence, and wonder upon the unfolding and dynamic cosmos as being a very natural phenomena? Is "human intuition" really the most reliable or consistent barometer/measure of either ascertainable fact or truth? Is it really?

How do you obtain evidence about what caused nature? To me the most absurd solution is that nature caused itself.

How convenient for you.

"Science" (as that monolithic, undefined, entity of intellectual inquiry) does not even bother to uncover, discover, or reveal ANY suitable or confirming "disproofs" of claims of invisible sentient beings/entities.

To relegate "science" as some failing advocate in this regard, seems as facile and futile a claim that "science" did not "reveal" the existence of Neptune or Uranus until the last 200 years or so. Both planets "existed" before they were "discovered" (by "science"), and had been humbly orbiting our sun for literally billions of years beforehand. "Faith" (in any "god") had revealed NOTHING of these veritably (and undeniably) existent planets.

NOTHING.
NADA.
ZIP.
ZERO.
NOTHING.

The ONLY response from adherents of faith-based claims is..."god made them...for a reason." The only proffered validation of that claim is, "I believe it to be so".

Good for them.

I remain skeptical...for all the right reasons...

You seem to continually insist that my position is different from what it is. I consider myself a scientist and I by no means am anti-science. I do not claim that intuition should be substituted for verifiable science. My point is that I will follow my intuition in the absence of scientific evidence of the contrary. How is that unreasonable?

Good.

Now apply your "knowledge of modern science" to religious claims of "divine miracles", or resurrection of dead people. Square that circle, if you please.

The big step in faith is that God existed as a human on Earth. Once that is accepted the claims of divine miracles are easily accepted.

How? Because some folks allow their faith to interfere with their better judgement and objective evaluations of available evidences.

"Wishing" alone does not overcome incontrovertible evidences to the contrary, If "faith" were enough...then EVERY collegiate football team would win the national championship EVERY year.

Since it's more than plainly obvious that "fans" ( or faith-based adherents) can not (or do not) influence the ultimate outcomes of intensified football rivalries, why then should any "believer" attribute their faith as a righteously prevailing result? If both "sides" are pious and earnest in their "beliefs", why should either "side" ultimately prevail or fail?

If "faith" were allowed or permitted/accepted as some ultimate arbiter of accepted "fact" or "truth", then there would be little point in enjoining the "debate" of a football contest of two "faith-based" teams. Might as well give the trophy to any and all contenders with similarly faith-based motivations.

The existence of an absolute truth does not guarantee that we ought to be able to reach it through objective study and argumentation. I do not think that is a reason not to "choose sides". We do have intuitions and awarenesses that cannot be plainly formed in objective study and argumentation, and they just might lead us on a path to that absolute truth. If we don't follow this path, and that absolute truth can't be reached through objective study, we have no chance of reaching it.

How true.

The fair inquiry that follows such a s statement might be...is that really a good thing?

In many circumstances, no, but we are all very susceptible to it. Both the theists and the atheists.

 

[longshanks]

a red traffic light at the wrong time or a date with a dull woman

 

[s2a]

Hello NS,

I asked:
If "God" caused the cosmos "to happen" out of nothingness, then what caused "God" to exist?

You replied:

How can something that is infinite and eternal have a "cause"?

I dunno. It's your presumptive claim to substantiate, not mine. Does ANY leading contemporary scientific cosmological theory purport/suggest that the cosmos is either "infinite" or "eternal"? "Big Bang" theory at least infers a "cause" for the cosmos. What prevailing theory suggests a "cause" of a "God"?

A material thing has specific dimensions and forms that necessitate a cause. But God has no measure or form.

According to what source?

God is the antithesis of nothing existing. He is the source of an infinite potential for creation and things to exist.

Again, according to what source?

I offered:
VERY complex concept here. Birth and formation of stars may seem (or appear) "designed" or "complex", yet it's a commonly observable phenomena. There is NO provisional faith-based/extant evidence that suggests that a "god" is either necessary to, or involved in, such "natural" manifestations.

Readily debatable....."design" implies a heavy burden of specified (or at least implied) "purpose", or "reason to be".

You replied:

Unfortunately, I offer no burden of proof. Just a sense of absurdity that life can be caused through mindless, indifferent processes.

I accept your rationale as an Argument from Incredulity.

"I can't believe it to be true, therefore it is not true."

I asked:
If faith-based claims of a divinely "created (and/or designed) life (form)" wish to establish legitimacy in such claims, adherents of such must present compelling substantiations as to just what reason or purpose such "designed" lifeforms existence serves to fulfill...within their own faith-based claims.
What is the "purpose" of Ebola fever? What "reason" of existence is "designed" into childhood leukemia?

We are branching off into all sorts of theological discussions, and these posts seem to be growing geometrically.

Really? The Ebola virus and lukemia are hardly theological concepts. They exist, today. Do they serve some divine "purpose", or do they not?

To put it briefly, suffering in general, is necessary for the human story. Without it, love would hold no value. Also, all things are reconciled after death.

An interesting testament of personal faith. I just have a problem accepting the "necessity" of the thousands of children worldwide that perish daily due to the most basic immediate (but lacking) access to clean water, food, or affordable medicine. I concede that I don't "get" what any "god" is trying to say about "love", while witnessing cruelty, indifference, ignorance, and manipulation/abuse/subjugation of children (or their parents) to daily horrors in some remote region of "the human story". I wouldn't treat a stray cat in any similar fashion as a "mysterious" lesson of love...in any presumed "benefit" of advancing the human condition.

Sure, I "get" the favored "answer" that mankind "sins" against God's will and commandments, and when God cries about this sad fact, we get rain. But even we mere mortal humans can either choose to be bystanders and watch someone get mugged, murdered, or ignored into utter depravity, noisome filth, and needless starvation...as removed and disengaged "observers" of the unfolding scene...and be counted as impotent and wry hand-wringers testifying to the "mystery" and "unknowable" aspects of "God's plan"; or we might be motivated to intervene and act...for the very sake of preserving humanity and a civil order.

I observed:
C'mon.
These are your grandest indictments of a naturalist's perspective regarding human existence?

You said:

Yeah, the three that happen to tip my mind.

OK then. I remain, quite predictably, underwhelmed...and unmoved.

I said:
Good.

"Intuition" is an emotion-based supposition, predicated upon primal instincts (like fear, survival, and commonly errant guess).
"Intuition" is not scientific, nor does it present any valid substantiation of human reactions borne of guilt, ignorance, prejudice, or fear.

You offered:

One of my favorite Einstein quotes: The only real valuable thing is intuition.

1) I reiterate that "intuition" is not scientific. Einstein's own rigidly-held "intuition"... that quantum mechanics presented no merit in evidence or ascertainable fact, has been summarily controverted by present day facts and findings to the contrary. Einstien's "intuition" (or ingrained bias/denials was (proved) wrong. Neither "instinct" (nor personal ego) long survive ongoing critical examinations and review.

I do not understand how intuition can be considered an emotion? Like happiness, sadness or anger? That doesn't make sense.

Is there some empirical estimation/substantiation provided that suggests that "intuition" is (or should be deemed as) an objectively and independently verifiable methodology of scientific inquiry and discovery? Sure, human emotion can be studied...but does emotion alone serve as any means of a qualified objective methodology? What baselines of "hope", "love", "compassion", "faith/piety", or "intuition" shall we apply to objective studies of unearthed ancient artifacts, cosmological phenomena, viruses, or measures of light, sound, heat, or age?

C'mon. How is "the ability to understand something immediately, without the need for conscious reasoning" not an emotional argument/plea?

And to suggest intuition is not related to science, or at least scientific discovery, I believe is misguided.

Noted. But I would not confuse (nor conflate) abject inspiration, informed inquiry, or logically derived hypotheses with "intuition". He very word "intuition" implies the notion of an "understanding" that avoids/escapes any conscious evaluations/deliberations. I would describe such derivative "intuitions" as emotive expressions/conclusions lacking any empirical/evidential substantiations. Wishes, dreams, and "gut feelings" may inspire people to greater heights (or depths) in pursuits of intellectual inquiry and enhanced knowledge, but motivations are not "evidence" of anything other than personalized beliefs/validations of emotionally-driven preconceptions. This may explain why "ghost hunters" tend to "find" (or "see") ghosts; or why UFOlogists "see" alien spacecraft whenever an "unexplained" light or object in the sky is sighted.

This distinction (intuition vs. scientific inquiry) is important, and deserves more than "instinct" as a suitable "answer" to "explain" anything.

If I say, "I love chocolate, but I don't know why"...is my claim predicated upon emotion, "instinct", or at least subject other/further available avenues of inquiry to better test and understand the "why" of such an expressed (yet "unexplained") affinity?

Is "hunger" (of food); or "thirst" (for hydration); or "love" (for/of desired personal affection); rooted solely within the "instinctual" aspects of human existence...or do they also surface within our own conscious and cognitive abilities as well?

Ingrained "intuition" may very well be a part of our primal (even primordial) DNA...but even so, the human capacities of reason and evaluation suggest that "intuition" is more akin to emotional responses to external influences than any intellectual inquiries or estimations.

I said:
Show a scientist a lasting "fingerprint" of a god, and I'll show you a pursuing inquiry of investigation and measure unlike no other.
Ever met a die-hard Missourian? Mizzous say; "Don't tell me...show me."? If so, I'll introduce you to a legitimate "scientist".

You said:

The point is that many scientists appeal to methodological naturalism because they do not want to resort to the notion that "God did it, let's go home".

Indeed. Operating from a position that is forgone (and beyond further review) is a poormethod of either validating or sustaining scientific discovery/inquiry.

This is based on the idea that if an event has a supernatural cause, it cannot be understood by science. Science's domain is nature.

Agreed. If I claim to have an invisible, six-foot tall, talking rabbit...serving as my surrogate typist of this post...I would not expect "science" to reveal anything other than a complete and utter lacking basis from which accept my claim as being "true".

Say your hat "appears" to be blown off your head by a brisk breeze. You suppose it was the wind that "caused" the phenomena. I claim that it was my invisible enlarged friend (perhaps Oryctolagus cuniculus) that flipped your chapeau instead. What does your "instinct" suggest is the more probable "cause"? Which "cause" is easier to demonstrate, or evidentially support? What could I offer or provide that would allow you to accept/believe beyond reasonable doubt that "the bunny did it"?

 

[s2a]

[cont.]

I said:
MANY scientists? MANY?

I invite you to name just TEN (of the "many") most renowned and peer-reviewed "scientists" that CLAIM and PROMOTE the notion that "science is the ultimate form of knowledge and don't like the idea that it might have limits."
Just TEN. That's not many...

You offered:

My claim that "they don't like the idea that it might have limits" was inappropriate on my part, but here are some scientists that are logical positivists, and believe that experiential science is the only valid form of knowledge:

* Alfred Jules Ayer
* Rudolf Carnap
* Herbert Feigl
* Philipp Frank
* Kurt Grelling
* Hans Hahn
* Carl Gustav Hempel
* Ernest Nagel
* Otto Neurath
* Hans Reichenbach
* David Rynin
* Moritz Schlick
* Friedrich Waismann

There are many more, but I just lazily pulled these down from Wiki.

I acknowledge your concession of tendering an inappropriately expressed claim, and note your repositioned goalposts to suit your initial claim instead. I would also say that "logical empiricists" don't necessarily hold to the notion that "science is the ultimate form of knowledge and don't like the idea that it might have limits."


I asked:
Is it really more "logical" to presume a foregone conclusion of irreconcilable fact; than "God exists, and purposefully 'designed' the cosmos", as an "agent" of "initial cause"; than it might be to investigate the available evidence, and wonder upon the unfolding and dynamic cosmos as being a very natural phenomena? Is "human intuition" really the most reliable or consistent barometer/measure of either ascertainable fact or truth? Is it really?

You replied:

How do you obtain evidence about what caused nature? To me the most absurd solution is that nature caused itself.

Again, an Argument from Incredulity. You can't "believe" (or accept) that such a phenomena is possible...therefore it is "absurd", or beyond evidential explanations.

"Evidence" of "what caused nature" is collected on a daily basis, amongst a broad and (often competing) exploration of many differing scientific disciplines. "Cosmological origin" theories abound (and compete for superior validation). The "evidence" includes visual, spectrographic, radiational, biological, and theoretical ("atom smashing") experimentations that continue to illuminate and "explain" (to the very trillionths of a second) the likelihood that "nature caused itself". There's plenty of "evidence" to suggest that "nature caused itself". There's none that suggests that any deity was either involved, or necessary...except as testaments of faith-based claims/beleifs.

I'd like to believe that UFO's are visiting spacecraft borne by some extraterrestrial species. I mean, how cool would that be? I doubt that UFO's are such, because there are no compelling empirically-derived evidences to support such a notion beyond reasonable doubt. None. I do NOT claim that UFO's (nor extraterrestrial crafts/visitors) do not (or can not) exist. However, I do not presume that "unexplained things" that defy contemporary evidences/empirical evaluations are therefore "proof" of a flawed and derivative "excluded middle" ("either/or") conclusion.

I said:
The ONLY response from adherents of faith-based claims is..."god made them...for a reason." The only proffered validation of that claim is, "I believe it to be so".
Good for them.
I remain skeptical...for all the right reasons...

You seem to continually insist that my position is different from what it is. I consider myself a scientist and I by no means am anti-science. I do not claim that intuition should be substituted for verifiable science. My point is that I will follow my intuition in the absence of scientific evidence of the contrary. How is that unreasonable?

Unfair characterization. I accept your "position" as a testament of your own faith. I remain skeptical of the claims you forward in light of that expressed faith. Again...personalized "intuition" is not scientific in any form or methodology. Opinions predicated upon "feelings" are not invalid (per se), but they are rooted in human emotion rationalizations; not any objectively applicable "explanations".

I said:
Now apply your "knowledge of modern science" to religious claims of "divine miracles", or resurrection of dead people. Square that circle, if you please.

You replied:

The big step in faith is that God existed as a human on Earth. Once that is accepted the claims of divine miracles are easily accepted.

Like I said. Faith requires acceptance of a forgone conclusion that does not allow for equivocation or further inquiry. Not very scientific.

When I opined:
If "faith" were allowed or permitted/accepted as some ultimate arbiter of accepted "fact" or "truth", then there would be little point in enjoining the "debate" of a football contest of two "faith-based" teams. Might as well give the trophy to any and all contenders with similarly faith-based motivations.

You replied:

The existence of an absolute truth does not guarantee that we ought to be able to reach it through objective study and argumentation.

Why not? What "logical", or otherwise resistant barrier to human reason prevents such a guarantee? Do you forward the notion that there are "things" (of knowledge) that humankind "is not meant to know"? If so, upon what foundation? What entity/force/barrier would operate to deliberately prevent human reason from identifying/attaining any "absolute truth" by means of objective study and argumentation?

I do not think that is a reason not to "choose sides". We do have intuitions and awarenesses that cannot be plainly formed in objective study and argumentation, and they just might lead us on a path to that absolute truth.

Indeed. Probability/reason might also indicate that such paths lead nowhere. Now what?

If we don't follow this path, and that absolute truth can't be reached through objective study, we have no chance of reaching it.

I would accept that as an article of faith; not one of science, or reason.

I asked:
The fair inquiry that follows such a s statement might be...is that really a good thing?

You said:

In many circumstances, no, but we are all very susceptible to it. Both the theists and the atheists.

Crap. Bunk.

It's the same tired and impotent argument put forward over and over again by almost all adherents of faith-based beliefs.

"You're just like us...".
"Atheism is a faith too!"
"It takes just as much faith to 'disbelieve' [in] a god as it does to 'believe' [in] a god".

Crap. Bunk.

Atheists (and skeptics) accept the very real presence and impacts of human emotions upon our perceptions of others and self. The driving distinction betwixt the two is that theists rely upon emotions to validate their faith (and motivational rationales), and atheists rely upon their own ingrained reason, and capacities of open and unfettered inquiry to better/best explain the nature of themselves, humanity, and the cosmos.

Sometimes..."I don't know...but I'm going to try to find out" is the most "scientific" answer of all. To claim that "god did it" (and be satisfied with that answer), is to abandon any call for all further inquiry or speculation. Foregone conclusions derived of claimed incontrovertible "fact" are not only unscientific...they rail against our own unmeasured capacities of reason and unbridled intellectual inquiry. Invisible deities answer no "unknowns". Claims of invisible deities only serve to perpetuate and sustain "unknowns" as "proof" of those supposed deities. "It can't be explained...therefore...god did it/exists!".

"There are some things that mankind is not meant to know or understand".

WHO says that? WHO believes that? Who seeks to defend that sentiment/belief?

"Either accept and obey such a foundational claim ("God did it!")...or go and 'worship' the 'religion of science'...and be just like us...only you're wrong and misguided/lost in recognizing the 'real truth'".

Crap. Bunk.