The Atheist Contradiction and Reasoning

[Luminous]

When people have tantrums chemicals from understood bodily glands may be released.
I say prove that the chemical reaction is not the brain responding to the emotion and signalling information to the body in how to respond.

I say prove that its not the power of the Lord's noodlely appendage.
however, you do have a point...perhaps the brain respond's to the soul's emotion, but if this were true than animals have soul's aswell. i understand that you haven't denied that animals might also have souls, but its still something to think about...that pill bugs become hyperactive in the sunlight and hypoactive in the moist shade. perhaps there small soul causes the emotion of stress

Prove its not an effect instead of a cause.

asking me to prove that its not an effect instead of a cause, is simply childish and tantamount to asking to prove that its not true that the sun undergoes nuclear fusion because it releases energy, instead of the right way round.

If it is caused by chemical reaction then what force caused the chemical reaction?

the laws of physics and the properties of chemicals is what governs the chemical reactions.

Afterall thoughts are not energy are they? It takes an energy to cause a force and energy is neither created or destroyed.

but only changed from one form to another; everything is energy

Don't forget the actions from your tantrum are also energy and will continue changing in and out of form as it goes into what ever you decide to take or release this negative energy out on.

Potential energy and Kinetic energy and Thermal energy; all of this enegy aquired through consumption and respiration. not through magical exageration.

I can say very securely that your assumptions based on your conclusion are wrong...the brain sends signals as a response to stimuli, and emotion is a responce. assuming that it could be that other way around and that the "soul" creates emotions is simply a childish hypothesis tantamount to assuming that the Noodlely Appendage causes emotions that then lead to chemical responses.

 

[Walkntune]

I say prove that its not the power of the Lord's noodlely appendage.
however, you do have a point...perhaps the brain respond's to the soul's emotion, but if this were true than animals have soul's aswell. i understand that you haven't denied that animals might also have souls, but its still something to think about...that pill bugs become hyperactive in the sunlight and hypoactive in the moist shade. perhaps there small soul causes the emotion of stress

I am thinking more along the lines of intuitive instinct.Intuition is our ability to gather information beyond logic and reason.

I can say very securely that your assumptions based on your conclusion are wrong...the brain sends signals as a response to stimuli, and emotion is a responce. assuming that it could be that other way around and that the "soul" creates emotions is simply a childish hypothesis tantamount to assuming that the Noodlely Appendage causes emotions that then lead to chemical responses.

I believe emotions are the way we communicate intuitively and the brain processes the information we pick up intuitively and rationalizes it into thought.This information is picked up intuitively as emotions(energy in motion) before the brain starts to process it and rationalise the information and communicate how the body should respond. Information doesn't come into the mind first.Any left over energy or information will become after thoughts until also dealt with and either used up or released.
Chemical reactions are only an effect of the process and in no way the cause.

Also want to add that animals also have this ability (instinct) to sense whether you are fearful or trusting or mad etc...
I don't believe they can rationalise you by your posture or facial expressions but they sense the energy you give off from any given emotion.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

If it is caused by chemical reaction then what force caused the chemical reaction?Afterall thoughts are not energy are they? It takes an energy to cause a force and energy is neither created or destroyed.

Short answer: the food you eat powers the engine that is your body and drives chemical reactions. The food you eat ultimately comes from plants, which convert and store energy from the light of the Sun. Light from the Sun is produced by the conversion of hydrogen to helium under the force of gravity. Life on Earth is powered by light from the Sun just a windmill is powered by the flow of a river.

 

[nrg]

In all honesty, what's the point of standing on a theory that may and most likely will be discarded for a more useful one?

Because it is still the best one. The theory of gravity says that if you drop your computer from the second floor, it will crash right down and you wont be able to use it more. However, another person has a theory that if you do drop your comupter today, at exactly 10:14 PM, it will float into space and there a couple of aliens just waiting for your computer will grant you millions of dollars and eradicate world hunger. Wich one do you chose to believe?

I can see being open to it's possibility but we should always be open to understanding the universe without making it subject to our laws.

We do, we're always ready to change the laws when they in fact are proven wrong. Newton mechanics don't work at all times, therefore we adopted quantum mechanics.

Both of these great scientists had this view and there intuitive minds took them past what their logical minds could see.

Both of these scientists used mathematics to prove what they were claiming. Einstein didn't actually build an atomic bomb in order to prove how general relativty governs sub-atomic particles, he used his theory to calculate the orbit of Mercury and it worked. Theoretical physics is great when you actually can't do the experiments. They're not perfect, but they're better than wild guesses.

They both observed the universe as what it is instead of what their logical minds told them it should be.

Do you really know how the work Tesla and Einstein did looked like? It was almost pure mathematics and logic, their greatest discoveries were to big to be proven through applied physics.

My view on science is its a perfectly sound method and it's only fault is the fact it's a method used by humans.

Nobody claims science is perfect, just better than every other system that exists, if you're supposed to judge them by track record and not the one that sounds the most appealing.

 

[Revoltingest]

In all honesty, what's the point of standing on a theory that may and most likely will be discarded for a more useful one?

As George Box said, all theories are wrong, but some are useful. Newtonian mechanics was (& is) very useful, but
it turned out to be wrong in light of the general theory of relativity. The philosophy of science is that science isn't
about absolute inerrant truth, but rather understanding the natural world so as to be useful (ie, make predictions)
to us. That understanding improves over time....fortunately.

I can see being open to it's possibility but we should always be open to understanding the universe without making it subject to our laws.

Of course! The universe reserves the right to confound our expectations.

“Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality.”Tesla

Tesla was wrong. Sometimes the relation of arcane equations to reality isn't discovered until later. Number & set theory saw that.

"As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality."Einstein

Einstein was right. Mathematics is merely a tool for model (ie, theory) building which has been found useful.
That's a good reason why predictions based upon the math (or any reasoning) are tested, eg, general relativity.

Both of these great scientists had this view and there intuitive minds took them past what their logical minds could see.
They both observed the universe as what it is instead of what their logical minds told them it should be.

That's not quite true. They both observed it thru the lens of their training, methods & values....so they both
experienced a process of observation, with all its limitations. They didn't "grok" the thing. They both got
some things right (as we see it today), & they both got some things wrong (as we see it today).

My view on science is its a perfectly sound method and it's only fault is the fact it's a method used by humans.

Excellent!

 

[ImmortalFlame]

When it comes to the science of emotions and mental health science has failed miserably.

You have obviously never even tried looking.

 

[fantome profane]

When it comes to the science of emotions and mental health science has failed miserably.

Quite the contrary, it has failed gloriously! There is no misery in failure if you don’t give up.

 

[Luminous]

I am thinking more along the lines of intuitive instinct.Intuition is our ability to gather information beyond logic and reason.
I believe emotions are the way we communicate intuitively and the brain processes the information we pick up intuitively and rationalizes it into thought.This information is picked up intuitively as emotions(energy in motion) before the brain starts to process it and rationalise the information and communicate how the body should respond. Information doesn't come into the mind first.Any left over energy or information will become after thoughts until also dealt with and either used up or released.
Chemical reactions are only an effect of the process and in no way the cause.

Stimuli is the cause, chemical's are the effect, which then become a cause...

Also want to add that animals also have this ability (instinct) to sense whether you are fearful or trusting or mad etc...
I don't believe they can rationalise you by your posture or facial expressions but they sense the energy you give off from any given emotion.

perhaps this is true, and this hypothesis seams easily testable, comparatively to the rest of your hypothesis.

i see you are proving yourself beyond my expectations. your hypothesis is somewhat reasonable, but i think it would be difficult to further confirm. I am not quite sure i completely understand your basis but it seams your hypothesis assumes far more than the current one.

 

[mahmoud mrt]

To claim that intelligence can only be caused by intelligence immediately begs the question: What intelligence caused god?

Cause God is the existence, it's a 1 to 1 equation

Existence: God, non existence: us and the universe

So existence bless the non existence with the bless of creation


http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...stence-non-existence-heaven-hell-torture.html


Regards
mahmoud

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Cause God is the existence, it's a 1 to 1 equation

Existence: God, non existence: us and the universe

So existence bless the non existence with the bless of creation


http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...stence-non-existence-heaven-hell-torture.html


Regards
mahmoud

That post was truly worthy of Gabby Johnson.

"Not only was it authentic frontier gibberish, but it expresses a courage little seen in this day and age!"

 

[FlyingTeaPot]

Cause God is the existence, it's a 1 to 1 equation

Existence: God, non existence: us and the universe

So existence bless the non existence with the bless of creation


http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...stence-non-existence-heaven-hell-torture.html


Regards
mahmoud

Wut?

 

[mahmoud mrt]

That post was truly worthy of Gabby Johnson.

"Not only was it authentic frontier gibberish, but it expresses a courage little seen in this day and age!"

I don't see it as a courgage with no reason, i see it as a simple fact


The question is always repeated Who created God?

The point is that God does not need creation, it's an equation

God = Existence,

The universe = non existence objects, then blessed by the bless of existence by God


Regards,
mahmoud

 

[DarkSun]

I don't see it as a courgage with no reason, i see it as a simple fact


The question is always repeated Who created God?

The point is that God does not need creation, it's an equation

God = Existence,

The universe = non existence objects, then blessed by the bless of existence by God


Regards,
mahmoud

So what you're saying is... I don't actually exist?

Right. :run:

 

[Luminous]

So what you're saying is... I don't actually exist?

Right.

I believe what is trying to be said is that the argument of atheists that existance was not created is rather less paradoxical then the theist argument...however, being as the starting point is theism, then it could be said that God existed and then created everything we now deam "existance" which is actually 'creation'. Its the obvious creationist hypothesis, just worded differently to appear to diminish the blantanty of its greater assumptions over the atheist argument.
In essence, you do exist, but only because God existed first. am i right?

 

[DarkSun]

I believe what is trying to be said is that the argument of atheists that existance was not created is rather less paradoxical then the theist argument...however, being as the starting point is theism, then it could be said that God existed and then created everything we now deam "existance" which is actually 'creation'. Its the obvious creationist hypothesis, just worded differently to appear to diminish the blantanty of its greater assumptions over the atheist argument.
In essence, you do exist, but only because God existed first. am i right?

Really? I thought he was saying that we were created from nothing by God, that God made that which doesn't exist, exist, and so we should be grateful for the gift of life that God gave us. Compared to Him, we're unimportant. We're non-existent (or at least, we were and still are in God's eyes). Nothing exists but God, we are all insignificant, and there is only God.
Or something along those lines.
But your guess is as good as mine.

 

[McBell]

Really? I thought he was saying that we were created from nothing by God, that God made that which doesn't exist, exist, and so we should be grateful for the gift of life that God gave us. Compared to Him, we're unimportant. We're non-existent (or at least, we were and still are in God's eyes). Nothing exists but God, we are all insignificant, and there is only God.
Or something along those lines.
But your guess is as good as mine.

For what it is worth......

That is the same understanding I got from what he posted.
Though, I can see how it might be the other.
Unfortunately, it could be one of another 20 or 30 things.
Perhaps he will further explain?

 

[Wotan]

For what it is worth......

That is the same understanding I got from what he posted.
Though, I can see how it might be the other.
Unfortunately, it could be one of another 20 or 30 things.
Perhaps he will further explain?

Frankly, I hope NOT.

 

[mahmoud mrt]

In essence, you do exist, but only because God existed first. am i right?

You can say it in this way


Regards,
mahmoud

 

[mahmoud mrt]

Really? I thought he was saying that we were created from nothing by God, that God made that which doesn't exist, exist, and so we should be grateful for the gift of life that God gave us. Compared to Him, we're unimportant. We're non-existent (or at least, we were and still are in God's eyes). Nothing exists but God, we are all insignificant, and there is only God.
Or something along those lines.
But your guess is as good as mine.

We were not unimportant, we were very important, but only as nonexistent creatures, you can say it as a possibility of a creature, but to say a nonexistent creature is more accurate

We exist cause God existed first , as [FONT=&quot]Luminous[/FONT] said

You can say that we were in God eyes, but now we exist, so half of you sentence is right as i see it, in the past we were in God's eyes, then we were created, then now we exist

Another way to say it that Now we really actually exist, cause God blessed us with the bless of existence



You can disagree with this concept of course,




Note that this is an additional concept from two Muslims thinkers, derived from the holy Qur’an, but it’s not in the main belief in Islam

The fundamental Islmaic belief stops at: God created everything, the universe, stars, planets, humans, animals etc.

Regards,
mahmoud