needimprovement

I do not believe in the existence of mind without matter.

What is mind?

We have very few analogues that we know - the fields.

What is the magnetic field and especially the gravitational field?

About gravitational field we know it is a property of matter.We know its effect but do not know what's gravitational field.

(About the magnetic field we know more, but we still do not know what it is.)

One's properties matter is that two materials can not be in the same place at the same time.

But fields may be in the same place and same time.So fields are not matter.

What are they?

By analogy we can ask what is mind?

Has certain physical properties as fields but not yet discovered?

Mind can be like fields and can influence the matter?

Can anyone show any evidence?

Why is it that the US dollar is so strong while the currency in third world countries are weaker? What makes a particular country's currency "strong" and another's "weak"?

Many things. When you talk about a strong vs weak currency, you're referring to its exchange rate in terms of some standard or relative to another currency.

That doesn't mean killing all babies is wrong. It doesn't really prove anything.

Descartes said that the only thing we can be certain of is that we are thinking.

Precisely! He was right.

No it doesn't, that's why it is necessary to test and retest hypothesis. If it presupposes integrity we'd take people on their word

Without integrity you are free to falsify the results! (And some do...)

How are they provisional and morals are not? Moral values change all the time. The cherub's job in Jewish theology was to take the souls of aborted babies, and other things, because abortion was an accepted method of population control.

They don't! Values like love and respect for the rights of others never change.

By that example I was just trying to show that both morality and science have their own certainties, even though the former is just trying to describe essential values for human life in a social context, while the latter is trying to predict the behavior of matter under various conditions in the future.

I don't see what you're arguing, you say killing babies and gravity is like comparing apples to oranges, so are you saying that morality isn't science?

On what grounds you assert that it must be one or the other?

My argument is essentially that morality and science are incommensurable, so the question, 'Is morality a science?' really has to be regarded as undefined, like asking, 'Is snow a bad philosopher?' The kind of certainty the unexcused homicide of infants carries in our culture is quite emphatic, but it is nothing like the equally solid certainty of Coriolis forces explaining why freely-hanging pictures on walls all slant in the same way in the same place.

I voted "strongly agree" on behalf of Marc Oraison. He defines morality as "the science of what man ought to be by reason of what he is" (p. 22).

That doesn't mean killing all babies is wrong. It doesn't really prove anything.

 

 

 

 

Descartes said that the only thing we can be certain of is that we are thinking.

 

 

 

No it doesn't, that's why it is necessary to test and retest hypothesis. If it presupposes integrity we'd take people on their word

 

 

 

How are they provisional and morals are not? Moral values change all the time. The cherub's job in Jewish theology was to take the souls of aborted babies, and other things, because abortion was an accepted method of population control.

 

 

 

No, one of the first things professors teach is that science always has a margin of uncertainty. You are arguing that morality has a certain value but can give no value to it. That is the point is that it isn't scientific because it can't be quantified. There are places and times were killing children was morally acceptable, but there has never been a society where gravity doesn't have an effect.

What if there was evidence that murdering babies was OK? I can't imagine what kind of evidence that could possibly be, and I am sure that its very far fetched. But evidence against Earth being subject to gravity is also very far fetched.

I think the absurdity of Marat's question is mostly because of the emotional reaction any of us would have at murdering babies. Nobody would feel awful about giving up gravity, but we get a very strong reaction to baby killing. One choice is way easier than the other, but not for the same reasons. Again, it's comparing apples to oranges.

Prove it.

Earth's gravity can be quantified to give an approximate acceleration of [math] 9.8 m/s^{2} [/math]. What is the wrongness value for killing babies?

Try to kill your own babies and you will see.

Please show your work and express your answer in appropriate units.

1. All scientific propositions are based on our certainty that we are thinking.

2. Science presupposes integrity.

3. Scientific conclusions are provisional whereas moral principles are not!

By that example I was just trying to show that both morality and science have their own certainties, even though the former is just trying to describe essential values for human life in a social context, while the latter is trying to predict the behavior of matter under various conditions in the future.

It's like comparing apples and oranges. Even if both propositions are certain, though both are approached by different avenues. This is another reason why scientism is not so humble a creed as it might be. There is an illusion among those dedicated to the creed that only science can achieve true certainty compared to all other avenues of knowledge. And even then, the certainty of science is only provisional. Our certainty about gravity, for example, is provisional and subject to incoming evidence; whereas our certainty about the immorality of killing innocent children is absolute.

I'm certain the earth is flat. Whether killing babies is bad or not is an arbitrary judgment based on the moral values held by the person making that moral judgment. This even dispite your use of the word murder implying the act is illegal and the word innocent implying they did nothing wrong. For example,

Murdering innocent babies is always wrong, but Earth's gravity is variable. So I am more certain of the former.

It is interesting to compare 'truths' of morality and of science by asking this question: Which are you more certain of, that murdering innocent babies is wrong is that the the Earth is subject to gravitational forces?

To illustrate the absurdity of posing this as a binary decision, please answer the following question:

Have you stopped beating your wife?

[ ] Yes

[ ] No

What is morality?

Science today has been hijacked by an ideology.

Let us look at Hubble and redshift:

http://astronomy-mall.com/Adventures...e/peculspr.htm

http://news.discovery.com/space/no-t...t-quasars.html

http://news.discovery.com/space/no-t...t-quasars.html

This article tells us there is no time dilation for quasars. There are other examples of non-distance related redshift. Even the sun exhibits a redshift. Hubble himself admitted his observation may not have something to do with distance.

The Church has infallibly determined that the universe is of finite age.

For you to equate atheism with materialism, you have to abandon materialism as a theistic viewpoint. No theist can accept any science. That's trivially false.

 

Why is a materialistic argument only "unfair" when an atheist makes it and the theist disagrees? You have not explained this. You claim, for example, that most theists accepted that the earth was round well before even the time of Christ, but do not address whether they accepted this for material reasons or divine ones. The germ theory of disease, regardless of whether introduced by a theist or an atheist, is a theory that posits a materialistic cause, and replaced the theistic "model" of demonic possession. Did the theists abandon demonic possession because of holy inspiration, or because of the materialistic evidence? You aren't arguing theism vs atheism.

It seems that the supposed schism between science and religion is overblown and unnecessary. Everything I read and understand about science of all types only confirms for me the greatness of God's plan. I don't understand why some scientists ( broadly speaking) seem to think that because they can understand and quantify the mysteries of the universe that it somehow negates God.

If he's so merciful, why does he let Satan exist to do evil things to us?

You do not believe in God: why should you now believe in Satan? Do you really believe Satan exists if God doesn't? If you don't, yours is no argument.

The universe must be more ancient than the ancients could fathom.

That is one reason why Genesis is such a simplistic explanation for Creation. No modern explanation including the idea of evolution would have been possible three thousand years ago for the simple reason that science as we recognize it today had yet to arrive. God could not reveal the mechanism of evolution, but God could and did reveal that Creation occurred over time and in a certain prescribed order. Genesis tells us that the universe began with an explosion of light, which modern science confirms. Genesis tells that life began in the sea and moved to the earth and the sky, which science also tells us. Science tells us that man was created last, which science also tells us. In no other world religion is the account of the order of creation so consistent with science as that of Genesis.

It is true there are fanciful aspects of creation also present in Genesis, but they are not sufficient to overcome the more impressively accurate aspects of creation that seems to be the product of inspiration rather than mere guesswork.

Yes, religion has one standard, and science has another. But in a very general way the standards do not have to be so diametrically opposed as some have tried to make out.

This is not a discussion about creation/ID vs evolution but whether it is recognised by theists or atheists. The debate is not about evolution because it is recognised by the Church. I am reffering to the message delivered by Pope John Paul to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences 22 October 1996. He said:

Today, more than a half-century after the appearance of that encyclical, some new findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than an hypothesis.* In fact it is remarkable that this theory has had progressively greater influence on the spirit of researchers, following a series of discoveries in different scholarly disciplines. The convergence in the results of these independent studies—which was neither planned nor sought—constitutes in itself a significant argument in favor of the theory.

By the way, "evolution" and "by accident" are two different things.

My appologies also. let's go back to the original topic: Theists and Atheists fight.

If not, why not? If yes, in what way possible?

Is He trying to jerk us around???

No because there is only one standard. And Catholic Church accepts evolution.

We can also see it differently . All scientific models indicate that the universe is billions of years old and earth is 4.5 billion years old. This is surely in contradiction with religions who say that the earth is a lot younger than that. It may be the case where when one starts seeing from the God's point of view the earth is indeed a lot younger than that. I mean our space-time continuum may be something which appears only in our minds and the true actual physical space-time may be completely different or like the distinction of phenomena by kant. So we might need both kind of models to account for both religious as well as scientific worldviews. We might accept both the truths with out having to show that one is bad and other is good.

I was under the impression that dating anything was an iffy situation.

The billion year old Earth concept is a necessary component of evolution, and without that extreme length of time, evolution would be all but impossible. Even so, if God did indeed create the world, no one could say at what state it was created. So while God may have created Earth 15,000 years ago, He could easily have created it in the state of a 4.5 billion year old planet.

I would have to disagree with you that the belief that jesus was god incarnate is fundamental Christian philosophy. Some sects of Christianity believe that Jesus was the son of god but not himself god incarnated.

Whilst I understand what you are saying from a Catholic standpoint these would not be considered Christian sects. They might be considered to have laudable points and even to teach some truth but they would not be seen as Christian.

Isn't it possible to have free will but also to not allow suffering?

 

Free will does not necessarily imply that I will be able to carry out anything I will -- only that I be able to make the attempt. I could, for example, freely will to run up my walls and onto the ceiling, and I could cheerfully make the effort as much as I want.

 

Likewise, I could freely will to go shoot my neighbors, but if God intercepted the bullets just before they hit, nobody would say I was acting deterministically or lacked free will. I wasn't acting as a zombie with no free will at all. I did exactly what I wanted, but just didn't succeed.

The flaw is that you are pleading for some sort of imaginary universe where our physical laws of nature do not apply.

Imagine the scenario you are proposing:

Every time a bullet was fired, even at point blank range, for the purpose of murder, it would somehow disappear or have no effect on the flesh. Bullets fired for good purposes however, would have effects.

Hammers/axes/knives/cars used for evil purposes would have no physical effects. Weilded for good they would.

Presumably sound waves from harmful words would be dissipated before reaching ears.

And on and on and on.

It seems people confuse "arrogance" with "ignorant" or "unteachable."

If God is merciful why does He let anyone harm us?

It would be a greater evil not to give anyone the power of choice because then we would be zombies incapable of love or self-determination.

Does everyone think that it's wrong to try to convert people to a particular religion? For example, by going door-to-door and telling others of your religion, handing pamphlets and telling them how to convert etc. Generally in Western society, do people try to convert other people into their religions? Does this happen often in our current day and age?

 

Also, is it more ethical to try to convert an atheist/agnostic into your religion than someone who has already adopted their own religion? What does everbody think?

It is going to depend on what you mean by "try to convert". In the past, there have been forced conversions - conversions at sword point. forced or coerced conversion is not conversion and is therefore wrong.However, if one places the truth (as they see it) before another and thereby convinces them of that truth then this is not wrong, it is their duty.

It is required that we "make disciples of all nations" (Mt 28:19) This does not mean that every person in every nation be Christian but rather that we are to declare Christ in every nation and accept converts from all nation.

It is often said that We proclaim the Gospel, but it is the Holy Spirit who converts people.

If a fireman comes into a burning house, and the one to be rescued, refuses rescue, how is it that the rescuer is at fault? What? Because the house the one to be rescued has chosen to live in, could catch on fire?

If he's so merciful, why does he let Satan exist to do evil things to us?

Well, as Scripture has it, Lucifer was created good and pure. He changed, for various reasons, and God did banish him from Heaven (the Beatific Vision). In so doing, Lucifer determined that he wanted to take over from God: to sit in God's place: to overthrow God, as it were - like some human beings are want to do.

It would appear that when God creates Souls or Angels - eternal creatures, they are created to exist eternally. (How strangely consistent!) The destruction of that which is eternal is a contradiction. So, God just keeps Lucifer at bay.

This should tell us something about hell.

If he's so merciful, why does he let such bad things happen to us?

I'm going to offer an answer that will be quite contrary to most answers you'll receive. God did not have you born into a state of poverty, Satan did. Consider what capitalism is. It's an economic system that is COMPLETELY DOMINATED by greed. There is nothing about capitalism that is Christian. It's not about sharing or loving; it's about getting and competing. Why were people born poor? Because someone else was born rich, and nobody wants to give up their cash. (Keep in mind, I'm not advocating communism, or even socialism. Capitalism is bad, but at least it works.)

This is the same kind of question as "why do bad things happen to good people"? Because there are bad people, too.

Besides, you really have to consider the fact that you don't have it so bad. At least you're not living in a hut constructed from discarded corrugated steel outside some city in Indian, bashing a water main open with a rock so that you can have enough to survive. Or dying of starvation in Africa, your children wandering around mostly naked, without shoes, begging for food and eating whatever trash they come upon as their distended abdomens show absolutely that they are going to die. Or living under some random New York bridge, hoping against hope that you don't freeze to death while you huddle next to a burning barrel on a freezing January night. Or trying to survive on the pathetic little ration of government welfare you managed to pry out of your Chief, living on some damned Canadian Indian reserve, that's so broken down and destroyed the place looks like a war zone.

Be glad you're not strapped to a bed somewhere in Thailand, kept drugged and stupefied so that you can be raped again and again and again by perverted western businessmen. Or that you're not sold into sex slavery. Or living in the back room of a laundromat because you were smuggled into America so you could escape poverty in China, and the mobsters who smuggled you in now have you working slave labour to pay them back for their efforts.

This list goes on and on.

Be glad you're not these people. Yeah, sure, you have trouble making ends meet. Yeah, creditors are calling. It's tough to make rent or mortgage, whatever you have. Health care ain't free, and you've got the flu. Life is raining **** all over you, but you are on top of the world compared to the majority of people in the world.

It is a fact that 80% of the world's wealth rests in the hands of 20% of its people. Compared to the majority, you are filthy stinking rich. Come on, you're using a COMPUTER! You have the INTERNET! I'm sure you watch television, too. All those things are unnecessary, none of those things help you survive on a fundamental level.

There are people out there who would kill for a sandwich, and you're busy wondering why your life is so hard while typing away on your ridiculously overpriced and unneeded computing device.

Edit: I forgot to say, that while people busy praying that God will deliver them from poverty, make sure to mention those people who are in the situations I've just got finished listing.

I think you misunderstand that group. It was the theists that first set science apart from religion. They did it when several theistic thinkers attempted to objectively prove the existence of their God. They set the bar too high and when they couldn't clear the bar they instead concluded that religion and science were in two different magisterial groups. Myself, I think that if a religion is true it must conform to science and likewise true science must include the possibility of a creator.

 

 

NO, this seems mostly off the mark. Atheists only need facts about certain things, on others they depend on a continued lack of evidence. Its about where one puts their faith not the presence or absence of it.

I have always believed that truth cannot contradict truth. If science and religion do not agree, it is either a case of bad science or bad religion. Sometimes, the facts and data do not disagree but interpretations are most frequently in error.

Is this your personal view or are you relating something fundamental about Christian philosophy?

Both. It feels good to pray to lord at every meal for the almighty having shown the love upon us and providing us with the food, but a rich plum cake is always more nice on Christmas than any other day.

We all appreciate all matters, but just attach a special day for special gifts, special foods, and greeting people on that special day of their birth every year.

By the way, when is your birthday (2011) ... I wish to send you my special and warm Greetings.

It's also a fundamental of Christian philosophy. He became man to show us the way, and dying just like the rest of us. But He also rose from the dead, because He is the Son of God.

As for the significance of it, it's really not the "birth" we focus on (per your reference to the manger and the miracles), but on the Incarnation, although most people will talk about the "birth" in reference to Christmas. That Incarnation did not commence with His birth, it began with His conception in the womb of a human woman. It is the fact that the Creator of the Universe loved us so much that He took on human flesh and fully became a human being ( while fully remaining God) in order that He personally could redeem us and offer us eternal life with Him by sacrificing His own human flesh for our redemption. The spiritual "rebirth" of humanity, as you put it, began with that Incarnation. The two events fit together and should be seen as a whole. Animals, while having flesh, do not have immortal souls. Humans do.

And in order to begin to understand the significance of this, you have to begin with the Old Testament.