The Creator

[Freethinker]

But to keep things moving, I'll give a shot at your questions.

Originally posted by: wisdumn

do you believe that everything has to or for that matter can be proven? ...if so let's put an analogy up. if i said that i had a dream last night about oh i don't know,

This is the fallacy of the complex question. By combining so man elements together in a string like this you can create a requirement for a priori acceptance of assertions. Here you want to assert that a "dream" is a "thing". Are you claiming a "dream" has physical properties? If so, it CAN be measured.

 

In fact we can monitor a person's activities while asleep and detect the periods in which he is dreaming. We CAN measure his dream.

 

Can we "measure" WHAT he is dreaming? Even HE doesn;t know that for a fact. At some point his conscious mind is trying to make sense out of the distorted signals it gets from the dream state. So a "dream" is nothing but a subjective construction within an individual's mind. It has no concrete physical dimension outside of the synapse that fired.

 

However, as soon as you bring a physical element into the discussion...

aliens, and i said that in my dream the aliens came and took my body and did experimentation on me and when i awoke i realized it had all really happened and afterwords

Now we have specificially defined physical metrics. Something that can be quantified and measured. If a physical body was transported was the person so isolated as to no one possibly being aware of the absence?

 

Then if there were KNOWN experiments done, what physical traces are there of them?

 

There are many other physical elements that could be investigated depending on the specific claims.

i told this dream to you. now can i prove to you that this dream occured or that i was really taken away by aliens or.. can you prove that i didn't have this dream or that i wasn't really taken by aliens. my stance is regardless of whether or not it can be scientifically proven, some things are beyond human perception

When dealing with a singular anecdotal example which perhaps lacks the first bit of verifyable support for it, the best we can do is log it as an anomaly and look for repretition of the event.

 

And that is where a big difference comes in. If we are setting up an analogy, it has to be a good one. One that reflects ALL the common elements. Including repetition. If we start talking about multiple events, then we can develop a much more detailed database of information. We can find any repetitive elements and consistancies compared to inconsistancies. The more specific and repetitive the events the more testable it becomes and the more accurate the results of the test become.

 

So if your dream represented a singular events, it is an interesting curiousity, if you are one of thousands making the claim, then we can start finding out how real it is. And every detailed evaluation I have ever seen has shown them to be false memories or intentional fraud.

not everything is 2+2. the heart i was referring to is the soul, just using another term for it, by the way freethinker,

See? I knew it would come back up.

i was wondering if you had a chance to read my first post on page 3, if not i hope you will, it more explains my initial views in which uncle martin first responded to. sorry if i haven't answered all of your questions in full yet but i can't remember each one, refresh me

I just read it again. I still don;t see anything that answers the specific questions I have asked. So I will wait for that reply.

[galaxy]

My intentions were not to sound arrogant, but to prove my point. However, I do see were you are coming from Uncle Martin, and I apologize if offended anybody.

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: galaxy

Freethinker, you mentioned several times that this is a "SCIENCE" site, implying perhaps that this is not the right place for me. Well, if that was not your intention, I apologize for the misunderstanding.

I would never want to discourage someone that is truly interested in a good discussion here. We just find a lot of people that don;t seem to understand the concept of a science oriented discusion, by that meaning something that involves some level of valid support and predictablity based on logical and reasoned processes. Too often we asre asked to accept something in a discussion without being given any valid reason to accept it. Then when asked for the support, we are ignored, an attempt is made to drag the discussion in another direction, we are told we are going to burn in hell or the person leaves. I guess I was just trying to save us all alot of misdirection in front if possible.

I like knowing about different pov, and I like sharing my ideas...

Then we should enjoy this discussion. And we can explore each other's POV critically and see how each one works, or doesn't.

I am in a SCIENCE site because fortunately we still live in a free country,

Thus we find biases. You may find it interesting that we USA'ers are a minority here. The owner of the site is from Norway. Not everyone that visits this site, or posts on it, is from what you want to call "a free country".

 

And I would have trouble calling a country FREE when peope are arrested in public gatherings because of the T shirts they were wearing and fired from their Federal Gov job. Or people are arrested and locked away just because the head of the country says so.

We live in a free country and we can decide to be Christians or atheist,

However WE are not FREE to not have to pay to support religious organizations. I can not decide to NOT support YOUR religious organization.

 

Further, *I* can not run for public office in SIX states in the US becuase I will not swear to your god. You call THAT FREE?

One thing I do expect is to be treated with respect and equality.

I can assure you that I will try my best to respond to your posts at atleast as respectfully as yours are. I always say, "When in Rome..."

I joined this group because I found it interesting, in fact I found many of your comments very interesting.

Ya owe me one Tormod! :-)

I will remain to believe in Christ.

Once more back to the "this is a science site". You can not claim to be interested in intelelctually honest investigation of something if you come to the research with a closed mind already determined to keep whatever belief you had coming in. That is NOT a scientific approach.

I will keep posting. If you find my views offensive, then just don't read my replies.

I always find replies to be of interest for any number of reasons. And I have not seen anything offensive yet??? :-) Just that typical assertion of perfect knowledge. That YOU KNOW without question, perfectly ...

I will remain to believe in Christ.

Even Hawkings can change his stance on black holes!

[wisdumn]

happy wednesday everyone, hope you are all well. so i've been reading the post,wow, looks like there was a slight bit of tension going on galaxy,freethinker . hope you are both willing to keep positive here and let's definitely try to keep in the realm of discussion, no one likes the soap box stance(not that either one of you were taking it) but still let's try to not offend or be offended. to answer your question about the soul freethinker, the soul is what is referred to as that that exist inside the body that cannot be seen or measured although scientist just a few months ago i saw on fox news were trying to prove the existance of the soul and there were one group that believed they had proven it's existance and the other group just believed firing of the synapsis was taking place. and the TERM heart is just that, a term and i'm not referring to the blood pumping muscle in the chest. such use can be seen in the term "heart break" is the person experiencing an actual breaking down of the heart as a muscle, no. they areFEELING very low and they're in turmoil inside so comes about the term heartbreak. as far as the dream analogy, while science can tell the points when a person is dreaming, it cannot tell what the person is dreaming about and as far as aliens actually taking the body, what if there were no physical markings or "proof" -again, does that mean it didn't happen? my main point for using the anaolgy was do you freethinker need a physical or "scientific" proof for everything? - i'll be back later, have to go eat, my stomachs growling, by the way, is that physical evidence that i need to eat or do i just feel i should?

[wisdumn]

hey everyone,i made it back from lunch so the stomach no longer growls. hi galaxy, thanks for the welcome. well if anyone wants to post i'll be here for a little while.

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: wisdumn

keep positive here and let's definitely try to keep in the realm of discussion, no one likes the soap box stance

Yes, my replies tend to be "agressive". It happens most often because I tend to have lengthy posts, which get even longer if I try to add lots of touchy feelies to soften the reply. So I tend to "get to the point" when possible.

to answer your question about the soul freethinker, the soul is what is referred to as that that exist inside the body that cannot be seen or measured

OK, I get to repeat again. This is a SCIENCE site. If it can not be seen nor measured, for all intents and purposes it does not exist and has no value whatsoever in a SCIENTIFIC discussion.

although scientist just a few months ago i saw on fox news

Ya well that explains lots. Fox News is well documented to not differentiate between lies and facts. e.g. a survey of US citizens based on their news sources regarding Iraq info. Fox News followers were WRONG over 70% of the time in simple factual info, while the other extreme, NPR listeners where wrong less than 35% of the time.

were trying to prove the existance of the soul and there were one group that believed they had proven it's existance and the other group just believed firing of the synapsis was taking place.

Thus after THOUSANDS of years of trying to find ANY proof of the existence of a soul, it remains a COMPLETE FAILURE.

 

Which as stated above, means any assertions based on a requirement for a soul is of no value whatsoever in a reasoned, logical, SCIENTIFIC discussion. Anymore that the toothfairy or Easter Bunny.

and the TERM heart is just that, a term and i'm not referring to the blood pumping muscle in the chest. such use can be seen in the term "heart break" is the person experiencing an actual breaking down of the heart as a muscle, no. they are FEELING very low and they're in turmoil inside so comes about the term heartbreak.

So once more, if it has no factual PHYSICAL value, if it does not relate to FACTUAL PHYSICAL bodily process, it has no valid usage in a SCIENCE based site.

 

There are any number of valid, well established terms for human body parts and processes. "Heart" as you define it is NOT one of them. If you want to relate any issues involving THOUGHT, please stick to SCIENTIFICALLY ACCURATE terms such as BRAIN or MIND when referring to THOUGHT. Unless you can show us the mechanism by which this "heart" you refer to actually does THOUGHT processing.

as far as the dream analogy, while science can tell the points when a person is dreaming, it cannot tell what the person is dreaming about

That is correct. That is because "What" a person is "dreaing" about has no basis in REALITY. It is just a personal subjective invention based on non-causal synapse firings. Thus once more, if you do not have any FACTUAL details to relate, it can not be offered as support in a SCIENCE based site.

 

I hope this repetition is starting to sink in. I hate to keep repeating "SCIENCE SITE" in order to help establish what SCIENCE is and how to have a SCIENTIFICALLY HONEST discussion.

and as far as aliens actually taking the body, what if there were no physical markings or "proof" -again, does that mean it didn't happen?

That is NOT what I said. What I said is if this is a singularly unique experience, and there is a complete lack of physical evidence to support it, it serves no VALID SCIENTIFIC PURPOSE for evidence of the event.

 

If it is one of a series of similar claimed events, then a lack of physical evidence for ANY of them tends to suggest a lack of actual physical phenomenon and further suggests a common halucination based on some physiological

[wisdumn]

i agree with you about fox news, they are definitely not the liberal media especially in matters of government and things of that nature, i was just telling you where i saw the news about the experiment.

let me ask freethinker, if you were going to conduct an experiment to see if the soul exist what would be your first move in the experiment?

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: wisdumn

i agree with you about fox news, they are definitely not the liberal media especially in matters of government and things of that nature, i was just telling you where i saw the news about the experiment.

While I find nothing that would require truth to be the exclusive realm of liberals, the overwhelmingly conservative bias of the US media does tend to use mis-information and even lies as a regular tool to promote their intentional agenda.

let me ask freethinker, if you were going to conduct an experiment to see if the soul exist what would be your first move in the experiment?

The first move would be to develop an outline of what it is supposed to be/ do. We would first have to identify something that it does in our physical realm and then develop tests to identify IF that is actually happening.

 

Thus the first question is "What does the soul DO that no other already identified bodily organ doesn't already take care of?" What value is it?

 

Does it help pump blood?

 

Does it help provide better visual ability in low light?

 

Does it help learn additional languages?

 

Does it increase our physical strength? Lift more? Run faster? jump higher? ...

 

You state it "exist(s) inside the body" which would REQUIRE a physical space for it's existence and a physical interface to our physical existence. If it does not have ANY physical interactions with our physical existence then it's actual existence has no value regarding our physical existence, nor discussions involving it.

 

If you wish to claim it's only value is implemented AFTER we die (as some holder/container/ representation of our previously physical self) it would have to have had some form of interface to dump the "data" which is our life, into it at point of death. Or a continuous interface to keep it continually updated. (No such process has EVER been identified.)

 

In which case there would be some PHYSICAL organ which provided the PHYSICAL side of that ineterface. Thus there would be some bodily organ that shows a function over and above any which is exclusively physical in process. (No such interface organ has EVER been found.)

 

Meanwhile, unless a valid process/ existence is shown to support the assertion of the existence of this "soul", it can not be included in a scientifically honest discussion.

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: wisdumn

about the soul freethinker, the soul is what is referred to as that that exist inside the body that cannot be seen or measured

OK, then what is it? If it can not be seen of measured, what credible reason would there be for anyone to even suggest it actually exists? "Inside" is a specific PHYSICAL description. It REQUIRES a location. In order to have a location, there has to be a physical mass.

 

So which is it?

 

It DOES exist, PHYSICALLY, "inside" the body? If so, where/ how...

 

Or it does not have ANY physical component, in which case it can not have ANY involvement with our actual PHYSICAL existence. Thus why waste everyone's time pretending it exists?

[Uncle Martin]

Originally posted by: galaxy

Greetings everybody. I am new to this site and ......Well I was just wondering what your opinions were on God..........I was just wondering if there is any scientific fact that makes it certain that there is God.....I really found many intelligent comments here, so I was just wondering your opinions regarding this subject.

This is a group of excerps from the first post in this thread. Galaxy, and later wisdumn and rls I believe, were interested in the scientific reasoning of this subject. Well.....? You have it!!!! Freethinker has told all of us how a "scientific mind" views this nonsense. I, and many others agree with his statements.

 

So where is your rebuttal? Your proof that you are correct? The burden of proof is up to you. Nobody can prove a negative. I can't prove god doesn't exist anymore than you can prove that Santa Claus isn't real. PROVE That your god, and soul are real!!! I challenge you to think like the scientists that you wish you were. You will quickly learn that your worldview needs some major corrections. THINK DAMNIT . No faith is necessary, all you need is reason and logic. You have been mislead, and the very fact that you are all here to discuss this tells me that you are either hoping to recruit us or learn what the REAL truth is.

 

SHOW ME YOUR EVIDENCE OR ADMIT THAT YOU HAVE BEEN MISLEAD!!!

[Uncle Martin]

.....

[wisdumn]

so first we're born right? suddenly this body that we are in has life, the eyes now see, the ears hear, we can feel with our hands and feet, we can taste things, and best of all we have this brain. but my question is what turns that brain which provides us with all of our senses, what turns that brain from a mass of tissue and veins and whatever makes up the physicalconsistency of it, into a computer(as many humans like to call it) what makes it that computer, i mean where does the actual life come from? is it the sperm, is it the egg? which one of these 2 components contained the life? no matter because then we ask where did the life come from before that, what made life itself exist? see as people,whether we believe in God or we believe in the first atom or amoeba or whatever some people believe, it all comes down to what was before that? such as a statement made by FT either on this thread or the other thread "existence of God" what created your creator? well what created your amoeba, your atom, your big bang, see the starting point is where both science and religion fail, neither one can quite explain it, why? because all of you intelligent and well studied people, watch out now here comes the shocker< IT'S BEYOND HUMAN(that's all of us on this sight)PERCEPTION> so, again as i stated before, the light bulb didn't just form from sand and electricity, edison invented it, the sistine chapel didn't just paint itself, michaelangelo painted it, so that leaves me to BELIEVE and as well as i possibly can(scientist)prove the existence of a creator, and i'll keep calling it God. according to the Bible, Jesus states that God is spirit and that from God comes all of life. a thinking and living God is easier for me to believe than some atom in an ocean or on a beach eventually forming into anything.

[wisdumn]

....also, if this is such a science based site as people keep re-itterating, then why do the two words next to forums say.... PHILOSOPHY AND HUMANITIES????? i never new philosophy meant science but thank you all for clueing me in.

[wisdumn]

definition of philosophy according to webster's third international dictionary

 

PHILOSOPHY: a quest for thruth through logical reasoning rather than FACTUAL observation.

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: wisdumn

so first we're born right?

You are good at ASKING questions wisdumn. And while that can be a good thing, something we enjoy here. It requires some balance.

 

You do not seem to be any good at ANSWERING questions. You just ignore them. We need to clear soemthings up from your first posts here. To re-repost

 

Originally posted by: Freethinker

So to summarize,

 

1) is "some truth is inside the heart"a metaphore for what is actually physical synapse connections in the brain?

 

2) when you state "heart(or soul)" are you asserting that the term "soul" is just another way of saying "heart"? Or are you claiming the existence of some other object?

If you can't show us any valid explanation for and valid evidence of this soul and how the heart stores data, please acknowledge such. Then we can return the discussion to logical reasoned areas.

[wisdumn]

truth inside the heart AND if i must explain again, when i say heart in this context, i am speaking not of a muscle but of the soul, i do not believe this is anything to do with a physical synapse or anything to do with the logic and reasoning of the brain. and i might have put a question mark after that first statement but i was making a feciscious statement but phrasing it as a question. hope i answered you FT, but i believe that my questions are the questions you've been asking your whole life and when you answer those questions, make sure you answer them for yourself before you prove the answer to me.

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: wisdumn

but my question is what turns that brain which provides us with all of our senses, what turns that brain from a mass of tissue and veins and whatever makes up the physical consistency of it, into a computer(as many humans like to call it) what makes it that computer, i mean where does the actual life come from?

THere is nothing to indicate a required transition from the physical mass of cells which constitutes the brain into some mystical duality. It is a reasonably well understaood electrochemical process.

is it the sperm, is it the egg? which one of these 2 components contained the life?

These themselves are a form of "life". They are merely arbitrary points in the continuing process of life which proceeds from abiogenesis.

no matter because then we ask where did the life come from before that, what made life itself exist?

This is the fallacy of the "complex question". It is like a reporter asking a politician "Have you stopped beating your wife?" when there is nothing to show the politican ever HAD beat his wife. The question requires acceptance of somethng that lacks any substance, "wife beating" or that something "made life itself exist". It is a meaningless question.

see as people,whether we believe in God or we believe in the first atom or amoeba or whatever some people believe, it all comes down to what was before that?

This shows a lack of understanding of physics involved. To ask "what was before the BB?"

is like asking "What is north of the north pole?" Just as "north" stops having meaning as a direction when we are at the north pole, we can only go SOUTH once we have reached it, 'time" as we undersatand it STARTS at the BB and we can only move FORWARD from that point.

 

And this is why a NATURAL explaination (the BB) is the more acceptable answer than to assert an additional agent (a god) based on the simple application of Ockham's Razor.

such as a statement made by FT either on this thread or the other thread "existence of God" what created your creator? well what created your amoeba, your atom, your big bang, see the starting point is where both science and religion fail, neither one can quite explain it, why? because all of you intelligent and well studied people, watch out now here comes the shocker< IT'S BEYOND HUMAN(that's all of us on this sight)PERCEPTION>

No, it is just a matter of understanding that just because you can assemble certain combinations of words does not mean you have constructed a logical and correct interrogative sentence. e.g. "How many angels can fit on the head of a pin?" Yes I can assemble that sting of words and put a question mark at the end. But it lacks any credibility as a valid interrogative sentence.

so, again as i stated before, the light bulb didn't just form from sand and electricity, edison invented it, the sistine chapel didn't just paint itself, michaelangelo painted it, so that leaves me to BELIEVE and as well as i possibly can(scientist)prove the existence of a creator, and i'll keep calling it God.

OK, so to you "god" is what remains after your factual knowledge ends. A typical "God of the Gaps". As such the more KNOWLEDGE you gain, the less value your god has. Perhaps you don't understand the physics of electron flow enough to still apply god as the source of lightening and thunder? That is eactly the process used at one point in this god of the gaps approach to knowledge.

 

There are some of us that do not have problems with stating "I don't know" rather than inventing some stop gap god.

according to the Bible,

according to the bible, the moon GENERATES light, pi= 3.0, the earth is flat and snakes live eating dirt. So what?