The Song Fight Bulletin Board

A band called "The Rise" has an album called "The Fallacy of Retrospective Determinism". Neat.

However, their credibility is nil. They're no Devo.

Sometimes I like to re-read the Jazz/Puce discussion just to remind myself how philosophically and scientifically ignorant I am. However, I gotta say, I firmly believe in free will. Doesn't mean I may or may not have it, but I believe in it. Simply because I have had opportunities to make impulsive decisions, and sometimes I'll go one way, sometimes the other... I make a choice. Whether it breaks down scientifically or not, I really don't care. The sensation I experience is free. And that 's enough for me.

I remember being told that scientists could stimulate an ephiany (oh.. real bad sp!) with an electrical impulse... you science types could articulate that better. Anyway, this was supposed to be proof that God didn't exist, that a spiritual experience was merely a scientifically explainable impulse... my response to that is "who says God didn't build us that way so he could communicate with us?".

Anyone else heard of that?
Or had an ephipany? (grr...sp.) I had one ....once. I climbed a mountain-stream to this waterfall. As I got closer, I felt this rising euphoric sensation...it culiminated in this feeling of knowing everything, and everyone, and a realization that as long as I understood the "way" I could get to anything, anywhere, and do anything. It was an amazing experience, (no stimulants involved by the way!!)....I ended up sitting under the waterfall, meditating for an hour. I 've heard that most humans will have this type of experience two or three times in a life time. (The euphoric ephinany, not the waterfall....sigh, I give up on spelling, but you knew that already!)

Leaf wrote:Ephnipfiny!

Yep, it's called The God Spot. It has been turned into a shitty disproof of God's existence and an even shittier novel. In My Humble Opinion, anyone who thinks this disproves God's existence should be shot in the mouth.

I have a friend who stated yesterday that the question "Can God create a stone He can't lift?" proves God doesn't exist. I, being a man of logic, pointed out why this is not a sound argument. His response was that I was wrong and he refused to defend himself further, or give me a chance to defend myself.

I spent about an hour contemplating whether I should hit him with a brick or not.

You can't prove anything about God by speaking a sentence.

Well, except that God can be talked about.

15-16 puzzle wrote:You can't prove anything about God by speaking a sentence.

Few people realize the raw untapped power of the run-on sentance. Abusing conjunctions is the closest a man can get to godliness.

EDIT: You can prove that someone else's argument about God is stupid. Or you can try.

Puce wrote:I spent about an hour contemplating whether I should hit him with a brick or not.

Thou shalt not hit people with bricks.

15-16 puzzle wrote:You can't prove anything about God by speaking a sentence.

Well, except that God can be talked about.

But not that he can be talked about intelligibly.

Puce wrote:I have a friend who stated yesterday that the question "Can God create a stone He can't lift?"

Good the see the old medieval questions coming back into fashion. The usual anwer BTW is "Yes he could, and he could lift it anyway".

uhm... i believe in a God... to me it's easier to fathom...

another thing about science... is it believes everything came from one cell... which is a giant flaw...

because if it takes somethin' to make something... then where did the cell come from?... what created the first cell to even begin all that has come on...

it's one of those big debates no one will ever win... and everyone on both sides are too onesided... so it'll never change anothers opinion unless they want it changed...

the fact that everything works just right for everything to be here the way it is... seems to be like it'd be unlikely for it to happen without any assistance...

to have created a society that is powerful enough to wipe itself out... and to even question it's own feelings on how everything is and works... and to create... and have minds like ours... and the power to choose where we go...

there are unexplainable things all the time... and half the time when people try to explain them... it just makes them look ignorant... no matter how smart they are... (hints... this is a rediculuous argument if you are standing firm on saying how dumb someone is to think differently)

Well, there's this little thing about scientists...they may be stuburn, but when faced with proof they change their beliefs. That's one thing that differentiates science from religion/faith. Proof. Weird, huh? Prior to establishing proof, evidence is collected, options are considered, and theories emerge that hold the most probable solution. When evidence comes along that challenges a theory, people run with it and re-establish what's considered the current view. This goes on and on. Sort of a discussion or collaboration. And no scientist will ever claim to know everything or even pretend that one day we'll figure it all out. What value is it to argue that point?

The Bush administration doesn't demonstrate that they respect the process of discussion and collaboration. They have driven their stakes into the ground and refuse to move them in the face of overwhelming evidence concerning climate change, endangered species, WMD, deficits, etc. "I'm the kind of guy that stands up for what I believe in" was a line I heard him say the other day. There's a difference between defending your beliefs and following dogmatic views based on "faith". When this involves how he butters his bread I don't care. But when it involves how he runs our nation and effects our world it pisses me off no end.

(back to my cave)

Kamakura wrote:Thou shalt not hit people with bricks.

What should we hit people with then?


PS. If everything needs a cause, who made god?

Poor June wrote:another thing about science... is it believes everything came from one cell... which is a giant flaw...

because if it takes somethin' to make something... then where did the cell come from?... what created the first cell to even begin all that has come on...

It's not believed that everything came from one cell, at least not in widely accepted science.

I believe in a higher power too, but I find it necessary to infuse that belief, that blind faith that I can only explain through intuition, with beliefs that come from scientific proof. Otherwise, my head would be brimming with contradictions.

Poor June wrote:what... created..... the first.......... cell......? ..... .. .....

It's generally accepted (and taught [and demonstrated in a laboratory]) that amino acids form fatty lipids that are polar (have negatively charged heads and positively charged tails). These molecules naturally line up to form sheets, and sometimes (although it is rare) they form what is called a phospholipid bi-layer, which is a very simple casing for a cell. Some artificial viruses have been created in laboratories simulating the conditions of early earth by trapping RNA, which forms naturally from amino acids, inside one of these casings. It is postulated that a simple cell could have been formed this way, or could have evolved from a naturally forming virus; these proto-cells are called prokaryotes.

The more you know!

Kapitano wrote: PS. If everything needs a cause, who made god?

"Did you make mankind after we made you?" - XTC

Poor June wrote:the fact that everything works just right for everything to be here the way it is... seems to be like it'd be unlikely for it to happen without any assistance...

It's unlikely that any one person is going to win the lottery when he buys a ticket. But it's even more unlikely that a lottery will continue indefinitely without ever getting a winner.

15-16 puzzle wrote:

Poor June wrote:the fact that everything works just right for everything to be here the way it is... seems to be like it'd be unlikely for it to happen without any assistance...

It's unlikely that any one person is going to win the lottery when he buys a ticket. But it's even more unlikely that a lottery will continue indefinitely without ever getting a winner.

And whoever finally wins will think to themselves "wow, what are the chances of that happening to me!?" As 15-16 said, the answer is "low, but it had to happen to someone".

Puce wrote:

15-16 puzzle wrote:

Poor June wrote:the fact that everything works just right for everything to be here the way it is... seems to be like it'd be unlikely for it to happen without any assistance...

It's unlikely that any one person is going to win the lottery when he buys a ticket. But it's even more unlikely that a lottery will continue indefinitely without ever getting a winner.

And whoever finally wins will think to themselves "wow, what are the chances of that happening to me!?" As 15-16 said, the answer is "low, but it had to happen to someone".

It is god's will, apparently.

PJ - evolution doesn't explain how everything works just right according to some preconceived plan (some religions try to explain that). It explains how things became what they are through mutation. You should check it out. And, it's a little known secret that things are actually still changing and they won't be this way ever again. Wow, huh?

And if we don't get a handle on this <a href="http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,311 ... ml">global warming problem</a>, things could start changing in a way that'd be hard to ignore.

some pretty good points...

but the idea i was sayin' from the one cell thing... if there was nothing... then what conditions could cause somethin' to come from 'nothing'...

would there have been conditions back then?... ya know... there are somethings that you really can't explain with just science... you can only make theories and guesses...
and just because ones theories are different then another... doesn't make it wrong...

cause no one has all the answers

just pointing out... that just cause this could be 'this way'... or could be 'that way'... makes no one really 'wrong' in there view... cause in all reality... it's all just theories... and guesses... some of them are better then others... but still don't think it's right for anyone to say that makes someone else wrong...

(and i'm not completely downing science either...)

roymond wrote:Well, there's this little thing about scientists...they may be stuburn, but when faced with proof they change their beliefs. That's one thing that differentiates science from religion/faith. Proof. Weird, huh?

You need to (re)read Kuhn's "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" or perhaps just Sagan's "Contact."

The line between science and faith isn't as thick as you think. In my experience, individual scientists are loathe to retract their pet theories, and deeply entrenched in their little enclave's way of thinking. Evidence is convincing, but only when it is interpreted. And interpretation requires background understanding. And background understanding has to be, to some extent, taken on faith.

I'm not defending this administration's decision-making style. You are correct that it is not empirically driven enough. But don't delude yourself that scientists are righteously correct about such matters.

Kapitano wrote:"Yes he could, and he could lift it anyway".

In other words, "no."

Could God create a stone he can't lift?

My non-scientific, non-denominational answer:

I find the question troublesome, because God does not lift stones at all. God does not have a physical presence, therefore is not subject to physical limitation.

If the question is meant to be 'Can God create a paradox?', then it's arguable that since paradoxes exist, the answer is yes. But we may only perceive things as paradoxical, when in fact there is an underlying, not-yet-understood explanation. So I can't answer this either.

If the question is meant to be 'Can God create something which is beyond his power to control?', then one might argue that He's been in this business since day one. But again, I find this impossible to prove.

But for someone to refute the existence of God because His existence cannot be proven is as dodgy as someone saying He does exist simply because it cannot be disproved. Either stance seems to require equal amounts of faith.

Poor June wrote: just pointing out... that just cause this could be 'this way'... or could be 'that way'... makes no one really 'wrong' in there view... cause in all reality... it's all just theories... and guesses... some of them are better then others... but still don't think it's right for anyone to say that makes someone else wrong...

Mr. June is officially a relativist. You will no doubt piss off the positivists in the room (including me) with talk like this, but this debate has been had by greater minds than ours for decades (if not centuries). No one wins it. Best not to play.

Don't fall into the trap that says "either God created it, or it just happened." They can be one and the same. If God created the first cell, He likely did so using amino acids, electricity, and extreme pressure and heat. If an omnipotent, invisible God created the firmament to divide the waters first, then created dry land, then created grasses, it's hard to empirically distinguish from the spontaneous accumulation of matter via gravity to form a spinning Earth, centrifuging lighter elements to the surface resulting in dense atmosphere and sea, pressure-cooking complex molecules until a handful start to self-replicate and so on and so on. Can't distinguish them. "Existence of God" is outside science, not against it.

Relativists and positivists can shake on this: if two theories make indistinguishable predictions, they are equally valid despite their differences.

Unless you expect that God has hands and fingernails (since we are made in His image) with which He made all this stuff, in which case we should be able to find fingerprints and stray hairs, and perhaps some Divine DNA. Then I'll happily pit my spontaneous generation theory against yours; but I'll demand a positivist framework for empirical support. 'Cause you'd be wrong :-)