Wisdom behind creation.

[MonDie]

Why not instead say it begins when the brain becomes organized and differentiated, when EEG activity commences, or when activity in the neocortex (cognition) commences?

All definitions are arbitrary at first, then we come to an agreement. Clearly there's still disagreement about defining "life" in a lifespan context.

Edited August 12, 2014 by MonDie

[s1eep]

What is the topic now anyway? Why did we bring "the stone" up? I'm sure I was saying something along the lines of creation isn't God exclusive and I disagree with God used in a normative sense (such as by scientists to categorize beliefs in things happening before the big bang).

[zapatos]

... I disagree with God used in a normative sense (such as by scientists to categorize beliefs in things happening before the big bang).

Do scientists do that? I haven't seen them doing that in this thread except in those instances where that belief in things happening before the BB includes wisdom or imagination.

[s1eep]

Do scientists do that? I haven't seen them doing that in this thread except in those instances where that belief in things happening before the BB includes wisdom or imagination.

Yes scientists do that, and it's besides the point why.

 

Creation isn't God exclusive; wisdom isn't God exclusive.

 

You know nothing about God except from theories with no evidence, it's a fallacy that you believe him to have wisdom.

 

But sticking up for my idea once again; wisdom is part of the bran---who's to say that a brain didn't form prior to the big bang; it doesn't have to be a human brain, or an organic brain, it could be a machine, even an illusion.

 

And my point is, this type of thought isn't God exclusive, brandishing me as a deist or Theist because I chose to believe there was wisdom (a real thing; and wisdom only, no cause), behind the big bang, is not God-belief.

 

It's similar, but not God-exclusive.

Edited August 13, 2014 by s1eep

[MonDie]

brandishing me as a deist or Theist

 

What's wrong with being a deist?

[s1eep]

 

What's wrong with being a deist?

I believe in Nature and Time, and am a militant Atheist who understands how stupid God is.

 

I am quite a knowledgeable and hardcore Atheist if I'm even against God in the normative sense...

 

Reasons for why we do talk about God this way, because of people considered in intellectual positions often using techniques like you're using right now.

 

 

I think I'm intellectual enough on this matter to declare you as non-Atheists.

Edited August 13, 2014 by s1eep

[MonDie]

[snip]

 

Creation isn't God exclusive; wisdom isn't God exclusive.

 

You know nothing about God except from theories with no evidence, it's a fallacy that you believe him to have wisdom.

 

[/snip]

 

Define "god" for us. What are the defining features of a god if not wisdom or creativity?

[s1eep]

 

Define "god" for us. What are the defining features of a god if not wisdom or creativity?

I shouldn't have to define God, it's a forced word by religious stupidity.

 

My point is, you can't define God with a proper definition if you know nothing about it (there is no evidence). I do not know God.

 

My point stands that Atheists who employ God as a means to categorize others into religion are, on the off-hand, religious themselves, for they support religion, they carry the faith in the form of pseudo-knowledge (treated as knowledge).

Edited August 13, 2014 by s1eep

[MonDie]

"God" is at least an idea.

 

You're right that defining is easier when concrete objects are available for reference, as with the word "bird". We can directly observe a correlation between different bird-like features. For example, birds have both similar appearances and make similar sounds, which is why a blind person and a deaf person can rely on different definitions of "bird". Note: I think Hume had a term for correlated sensory features, but I can't remember what it was.

In contrast, we might have to rely solely on imaginary examples of gods. Unlike concrete objects, ideas tend to have weaker feature-correlation, but we can still derive a reasonable definition from these imaginary examples. There might be feature-correlation if there actually is a concrete referent or if different god-concepts tend to arise from similar cognitive processes, but neither is necessary for a working definition.

Edited August 13, 2014 by MonDie

[Phi for All]

I believe in Nature and Time, and am a militant Atheist who understands how stupid God is.

 

I am quite a knowledgeable and hardcore Atheist if I'm even against God in the normative sense...

 

I'm having a hard time with these variable definitions you're using. Atheism is a lack of belief, I'm not sure how the absence of something can be defined as "militant" or "hardcore". It's like saying, "I don't collect stamps, and I'm really a knowledgeable hardcore militant intellectual about that".

 

You really need to think about your definitions. You claim to be an atheist, yet you also claim "I'm even against God in the normative sense". Why do you need to be "against God"? He doesn't exist, remember?

[s1eep]

 

I'm having a hard time with these variable definitions you're using. Atheism is a lack of belief, I'm not sure how the absence of something can be defined as "militant" or "hardcore". It's like saying, "I don't collect stamps, and I'm really a knowledgeable hardcore militant intellectual about that".

 

You really need to think about your definitions. You claim to be an atheist, yet you also claim "I'm even against God in the normative sense". Why do you need to be "against God"? He doesn't exist, remember?

Well clearly in your minds and religious people's minds it does.

 

Not only are religious people intruding on society, they also are perverting what I consider to be true good. Religion doesn't help society at all, and it sanctifies it's own version of good which makes what's really good become clouded, and the right men aren't seen as righteous.

 

A lot of the stupidities of religion have carried on into societies. I said this before, but the perfect Atheism is non-existent (because God wouldn't exist). How am I supposed to go about with my 'lack of belief' for God, if it's been thrown in my face, even when trying to be scientific. The point MonDie is trying to make is something along the lines of 'ease of access', which I believe is a very casual and unprofessional stance to be acceptant of such stupidity.

 

All humans could be rational-minded, but religion, and some other aspects of society probably best suited for another thread (some are addressed in my thread 'Humans and Earth'), are causing us to digress and a species, making the reality our children have to grow up in perverted.

 

People tend to seek God because they believe God to be the ultimate answer; it causes them to put their perception of life in God, they have such complexity of God belief that it is stuck in their mind that it is true. God was intended, on many occasions, to be a human man with a heavenly fortress in the clouds. The bible was written by a human, and should be treated as any other book with an author is treated. The author(s) of the bible have made themselves invisible, all worship is truly to the authors and people who profit from theology. This is a problem because people that could be decent human beings who help humanity or their population, but they see good in God, so instead be good according to what some human said rather than their own senses, feelings and environment.

 

I'm an Atheist, and I'm forced to be militant, because you are forcing God upon me, even though my own imagination and rationality led me to the belief/theory.

 

If I'm correct about "theorizing things that came before the big bang is not God belief", then I'm correct. All the wordplay that came about through you guys trying to 'win the argument' has taken us onto new topics and away from the original point.

 

My guess about primal imagination, can be considered deistic---the point I made here was that, if I'm Atheist, no it can't, it would just be answered with something like, "I don't know", not "You are deistic".

 

"You are deistic" is a religious statement; an Atheist who uses this to categorize people who claim to be Atheist, as religious, is not an Atheist, but a pseudo-Atheist.

Edited August 13, 2014 by s1eep

[zapatos]

Religion doesn't help society at all...

 

In addition to being a deist you also seem to have a bigoted attitude toward religion. I can't imagine that you can support that statement. Following is an example of what I think shows religion helping society.

 

 

Cardinal Glennon Children's Medical Center

 

Our Mission

Through our exceptional health care services, we reveal the healing presence of God.

 

 

Cardinal Glennon Children’s Medical Center is a not-for-profit 195-bed inpatient and outpatient pediatric medical center. As the nation’s only free-standing, Catholic children’s hospital,^{[citation needed]} Cardinal Glennon has provided care for children regardless of ability to pay since 1956. Cardinal Glennon primarily serves children from eastern Missouri and southern Illinois, but also treats children across the United States and from countries around the world.

Cardinal Glennon also serves as a teaching hospital affiliated with the neighboring Saint Louis University Schools of Medicine and Nursing, and nine other education institutes. Cardinal Glennon is a member of SSM Health Care, one of the largest Catholic health care systems in the country. SSM is sponsored by the Franciscan Sisters of Mary and owns, operates and manages 19 acute care hospitals in four states — Missouri, Illinois, Wisconsin and Oklahoma. In 2002, SSM was the first health care organization in the country to be named a Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award winner.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cardinal_Glennon_Children%27s_Hospital

[MonDie]

I'm done with this thread.

[s1eep]

 

In addition to being a deist you also seem to have a bigoted attitude toward religion. I can't imagine that you can support that statement. Following is an example of what I think shows religion helping society.

 

 

Cardinal Glennon Children's Medical Center

 

Our Mission

Through our exceptional health care services, we reveal the healing presence of God.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cardinal_Glennon_Children%27s_Hospital

I don't think that's proof that religion is good.

 

I've mentioned this before, we don't have to nullify the science behind religion; belief in a creator is not necessarily belief in God, because creation was taken from real life, whereas God is inane.

[zapatos]

I don't think that's proof that religion is good.

Straw man. I never said that is 'proof that religion is good'. I said it was evidence that your statement claiming "Religion doesn't help society at all" is false.

 

...creation was taken from real life...

You've been making these types of statements throughout this thread. What exactly does "creation was taken from real life" mean, and how did you come to that conclusion? It certainly implies that there was 'life' before 'creation'.

[s1eep]

Straw man. I never said that is 'proof that religion is good'. I said it was evidence that your statement claiming "Religion doesn't help society at all" is false.

 

You've been making these types of statements throughout this thread. What exactly does "creation was taken from real life" mean, and how did you come to that conclusion? It certainly implies that there was 'life' before 'creation'.

Have you never seen reproduction?

And religion hinders society more than it helps.

Edited August 13, 2014 by s1eep

[Phi for All]

I don't think that's proof that religion is good.

 

OK, this is too much.

 

When you're ready to think outside of black/white/good/evil, when you're ready to accept that concepts like these are extremely nuanced and subjective, when you're ready to acknowledge that something may be bad for you but good for someone else, this might become a productive discussion.

 

Right now it's just loud guessing with dart board definitions.

I'm done with this thread.

[s1eep]

 

 

OK, this is too much.

 

When you're ready to think outside of black/white/good/evil, when you're ready to accept that concepts like these are extremely nuanced and subjective, when you're ready to acknowledge that something may be bad for you but good for someone else, this might become a productive discussion.

 

Right now it's just loud guessing with dart board definitions.

 

Sometimes what's subjective is important.

 

If someone tried to rape your girlfriend, or murder one of your family members, you would want to prevent it. Why?

 

I think your bland semantics around the topic of good and evil are irrational, and suppress a particular greatness.

 

I don't like Religion, because I don't believe in God, and, as I said further on, it's ruining our societies more so than it is helping them. If you have a problem with that then go ahead and be ignorant.

[Iota]

I don't like Religion, because I don't believe in God, and, as I said further on, it's ruining our societies more so than it is helping them. If you have a problem with that then go ahead and be ignorant.

 

It's one thing to be opposed to religion, as many are. It's another to just throw it in peoples faces, and say if they don't accept it they're ignorant. You've put forward no respectable arguments for your position and can't expect to be taken seriously, in fact your argument stance could be likened to that of a religionist as it stands:

 

"I don't like religion because I don't believe in God" - (who cares?)

"Religion doesn't help society at all" - (absolute statement, false by definition)

 

The benefits religion brings to society are outweighed by the harm done by religion; is a better statement, which can be argued rationally.

 

As for keep If you have a problem with that then go ahead and be ignorant. keep that to yourself, there's no need to be insulting to others in your argument.

Edited August 14, 2014 by Iota

[s1eep]

 

It's one thing to be opposed to religion, as many are. It's another to just throw it in peoples faces, and say if they don't accept it they're ignorant. You've put forward no respectable arguments for your position and can't expect to be taken seriously, in fact your argument stance could be likened to that of a religionist as it stands:

 

"I don't like religion because I don't believe in God" - (who cares?)

"Religion doesn't help society at all" - (absolute statement, false by definition)

 

The benefits religion brings to society are outweighed by the harm done by religion; is a better statement, which can be argued rationally.

 

As for keep If you have a problem with that then go ahead and be ignorant. keep that to yourself, there's no need to be insulting to others in your argument.

What is your response if not a formalized insult?

 

And yeah yeah, my words make no sense but yours make great sense, I understand.

[Delta1212]

Have you never seen reproduction?

 

Well, that was a non-sequitur.

[Iota]

What is your response if not a formalized insult?

 

And yeah yeah, my words make no sense but yours make great sense, I understand.

 

I was about to explain myself further, because what I said previously seems to have gone straight over your head, but then I noticed your reputation of -142 and decided I'll go by my wits and take that as an indication, that I may as well not bother.

[imatfaal]

!

Moderator Note

 

Sleep

 

Either start taking on board what others have said and respond directly to their argument and counter-arguments or we will consider closing this thread. You are soapboxing, strawmanning, and evading progress through the use of a handful of logical fallacies - we just will not allow this to continue.

 

[Ten oz]

@ S1eep, your orginal post asked - "The question I’m bringing to the table is, beyond God, why did the big bang occur? There has to be a reason for such an event, especially one that’s considered scientifically, super-massive."

You opened this thread asking a question which can only be answered with pure speculation. Big Bang theory doesn't cover what happened before the big bang. Only what happened during and after. Posters have adressed your question and you've sense seemed to have evolved from asking a question to defending a position. We are 98 posts in and I have lost sight on the purpose of this thread. Are you looking for information from or looking to explain your beliefs to others?

 

"Why did the Big Bang occur?"

It is unknown. However, not knowing how something happened does not support any and all theories equally. For example we still don't know what happened to flight Malaysian 377 but it most likely had nothing to do with the ancient God Apollo. Researchers would better spend their time focusing on passenger backgrounds, weather anomalies, and equipment characteristics.

 

"There has to be a reason for such an event?"

IMO the first step towards understand WHY the Big Bang occurred is figuring out the physics. Quantum Fluctuation is promising. Applying a motive without facts doesn't seem productive to me. How can we scientfically figure a "reason" or motive without physics that would ever be anything other than pure speculation?

[s1eep]

!

Moderator Note

 

Sleep

 

Either start taking on board what others have said and respond directly to their argument and counter-arguments or we will consider closing this thread. You are soapboxing, strawmanning, and evading progress through the use of a handful of logical fallacies - we just will not allow this to continue.

 

I have replied to every post directly. In fact, you're accusing me of what you let others get away with. Multiple times in this thread have I wrote long replies only for them to be answered 10% (focusing on one sentence out of five or six paragraphs). So you're being unfair....

 

I don't agree with using slang words as rules, but it's a private forum, so I guess it's not my choice.

 

Going by it's very loose definition, I'm not soapboxing, I'm talking to the person who argues with me directly, every time.

 

Again, you're either being unfair purposely, or you haven't read the thread properly.

 

@ S1eep, your orginal post asked - "The question I’m bringing to the table is, beyond God, why did the big bang occur? There has to be a reason for such an event, especially one that’s considered scientifically, super-massive."

You opened this thread asking a question which can only be answered with pure speculation. Big Bang theory doesn't cover what happened before the big bang. Only what happened during and after. Posters have adressed your question and you've sense seemed to have evolved from asking a question to defending a position. We are 98 posts in and I have lost sight on the purpose of this thread. Are you looking for information from or looking to explain your beliefs to others?

 

"Why did the Big Bang occur?"

It is unknown. However, not knowing how something happened does not support any and all theories equally. For example we still don't know what happened to flight Malaysian 377 but it most likely had nothing to do with the ancient God Apollo. Researchers would better spend their time focusing on passenger backgrounds, weather anomalies, and equipment characteristics.

 

"There has to be a reason for such an event?"

IMO the first step towards understand WHY the Big Bang occurred is figuring out the physics. Quantum Fluctuation is promising. Applying a motive without facts doesn't seem productive to me. How can we scientfically figure a "reason" or motive without physics that would ever be anything other than pure speculation?

It's irrational to believe the big bang didn't have a cause.

 

At least you've tried 'the first step'.

 

The big bang is speculation, we use the power of speculation to make theories, and then we go about proving those theories as correct. One of the points I brought up, it's not 'religious' to theorize things happening before the big bang, and that's the only argument on this subject since I agreed that my short-term position was deistic.

 

The debate we were having was that "creation" (and all science attributed to God), should not be nullified with God as irrational, but instead separated because creation, and such, isn't God-exclusive. For example, we take the idea of creation from real life, by analysing reproduction or other types of creation occurring in the universe. We can then apply this to the beginning of the universe, as we did with a 'bang' we recorded from observation of nature, and applied it to the beginning to theorize the big bang. Even if creation, in this sense, is incorrect, that's all it is, the argument is that it shouldn't be "God-exclusive", or declared as religious.

 

I then argued to say "Religion doesn't help society", which one person proved wrong, to which I countered, "It hinders society more so than it helps".

 

And that's where we are at. You obviously haven't read the thread properly.

 

Focus on the bold text in your reply to be on the same wavelength.

Edited August 14, 2014 by s1eep