The Futile Arguments Thread

[Stevil]

But my point which I do think is true is that everything is energy in some form. Except concepts which are simply conceptual ideas rather than substance.

Concepts and ideas are, at their most basic form, just chemicals in somebody's brain, and chemicals are energy too, right?

Yes, the thought is chemicals and neuron matter within the brain but the subject of the thought is a conceptual idea. E.g. if you are thinking about a horse, then there are chemicals and neurons in the brain that make up that thought however the particular horse that you are thinking about is simply a conceptual idea, it doesn't actually exists on an alternative plane of existence due to your thoughts.

[LegendarySandwich]

Yes, the thought is chemicals and neuron matter within the brain but the subject of the thought is a conceptual idea. E.g. if you are thinking about a horse, then there are chemicals and neurons in the brain that make up that thought however the particular horse that you are thinking about is simply a conceptual idea, it doesn't actually exists on an alternative plane of existence due to your thoughts.

Maybe in an abstract sort of sense, but in a literal sense, everything is matter. The horse exists in chemicals in my brain.

[JoeBobSmith]

 

[Stevil]

the particular horse that you are thinking about is simply a conceptual idea, it doesn't actually exists on an alternative plane of existence due to your thoughts.

YOU CAN PROVE THIS?

Damn, I forgot to put my usual disclaimer.

Wouldn't it be cool though, if we could simply think something into existence and then control its movements simply by thought.

[Stevil]

Yes, the thought is chemicals and neuron matter within the brain but the subject of the thought is a conceptual idea. E.g. if you are thinking about a horse, then there are chemicals and neurons in the brain that make up that thought however the particular horse that you are thinking about is simply a conceptual idea, it doesn't actually exists on an alternative plane of existence due to your thoughts.

Maybe in an abstract sort of sense, but in a literal sense, everything is matter. The horse exists in chemicals in my brain.

So you are saying that you literally have horses existing in chemicals in your brain? Ouch

[JoeBobSmith]

 

[LegendarySandwich]

So you are saying that you literally have horses existing in chemicals in your brain? Ouch

Thoughts of horses existing in chemicals in my brain, yes. The thought of the horse exists as chemicals.

[Stevil]

So I think that solely looking at the Bible by itself, it makes solid claims to Truth, and that this Truth is the only way.
So when we understand the claims the Bible (and Jesus) makes about itself, you can't simply pass it off into another lump of 'religiosity.'

I don't understand this logic. You are saying the book is the truth because the book says that it is the truth.

Maybe it is only the Atheists that are really in God's grace. With the true ability to excert free will, not simply following the rules and message of the corrupt and evil scriptures. With the true ability to be selfless not simply doing "good" for the goal of getting into heaven. Only atheists can be in tune with the objective morals of the universe. Knowing that it is bad to be intolerant and to judge others, only atheists have the true ability to treat others as equals rather than follow scriptures that treat women as less than man.
Maybe only Atheists are carrying out the true god's plan and will.
The other's have been deceived and are following what they have been told, contrary to what they would otherwise have felt and known to be the right path, the objective truth and morals that one would be aligned with had one not read or believed the evil scriptures.

Please tell me how my theory is incorrect.

Well, atheists don't believe in a God, so I'm not sure how atheism would qualify itself as being the only philosophy that is in God's grace.

Atheists don't believe in gods.
Atheists don't qualify themselves to be in god's grace.
But that is beside the point. Atheists live true to themselves as they do not follow scriptures which may suggest actions, morals and beliefs which are contrary. Only Atheists can truly support a universal morality if such a one exists. Not being tainted by scriptures, Atheists can look inward, into their hearts, heads and souls (if such a thing exists). Theists tend to ignore the inward self and instead follow the scriptures, but I am saying that maybe these scriptures are not divine, maybe they are a deception. Maybe the real god/s wants people to tap into themselves to find the truth. If that is the desire of the god/s then Atheists are indeed in tune to god's grace.

The prerequisite of belief is simply something that is mentioned within the scriptures (which I am suggesting cannot be trusted). In fact is would be hard for me to understand a god that would punish people simply for not knowing that the gods exist, especially given that there is no proof on offer. The belief prerequisite is simply to get people on board with all the other stuff in the scriptures (which also cannot be trusted).
Also a key item is that only Atheists can be selfless as there is no hope of going to heaven for one's good deeds. Theists cannot be selfless, and I am told that selflessness is important in Christianity.

So when you take the practicality of atheism, it is a stark contrast from its philosophy.  

There is no atheism philosophy

how are you able to differentiate between good and evil?  What is evil?

There is no such thing as good and evil. The problem with this stance is that it paints the world in Black and White. It marks individuals as good or evil.
People are capable of being both good and bad, and frequently do both be it intentional or not.
There is a saying "the road to ruin is full of good intention"

In summary I am posturing that the scriptures are possibly the word of the cunning and deceptive Devil rather than god. It cannot be known what is the true source. If you believe in an absolute truth and an objective morality then you should be able to tap into that without the need to revert to scripture.

[defendor]

Stevil- I do appreciate your response, and appreciate taking the time to expound on that for me, thank you.  But when I read, I feel you gave a great description of what energy can do, but I don't feel the essence of energy was fully adequate.  You gave me great examples  of energy (what it can be) and its mathematical equivalent, and some intricate details on what energy can do, but never really gave the full idea of what energy is?  So what I'm asking for is the ontological argument for energy..?

Legendary sandwich- to answer your questions of the verses.  How can you say its clear description of what happens in prayer when you look at one verse plucked out of the schema of the gospel narrative?  To understand one verse cannot simply take one verse out of its entire contextual argument and make it mean whatever it is you want it to mean. This is where we get cultists and the prosperity Gospel.  

The reason I pointed to those other points was to essentially say, "Christ is not solely about performing miracles, He's about saving souls, everything is less important than this."  And without this understanding or belief in place, it all seems like foolishness. Christ performs miracles throughout scripture to indicate a spiritual truth.  He will make a claim with a physically rooted metaphor then expound on this demonstrating his power as the savior to illustrate his spiritual truth.  For example (not preaching) when Jesus said "I am the Living Bread, whoever comes to me shall not hunger" he is not saying if we eat some of his body that we will never need to eat again.  He is saying that he is the true sustenance of life (spiritual).  So to demonstrate this that he can feed spiritually, he fed physically, he fed the 5,000 with bread and fish.

God's plan/justice/perspective is from an infinite scale, so saying you know best, even simply philosophically, means that you have a grasp on eternity, which I will guess you probably don't.  I merely do my best to live in obedience, for there are a many great things I don't understand (the admission of ignorance is the onset of wisdom).  Take the universe for example, its astronomically bigger than us, and no scientist will claim to know how big it truly is, they only claim what we've seen, which is negligible to the actual size but the current agreement is 6,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 galaxies just like our own milky way, with astronomical distances in between. Thats  6 sextillion, its different with the 0's on it.  So in contrast, we make ourselves the own governor of our reality, beginning to believe what distorted physical senses we have as solid truth and claiming the basis of our knowing to our own, individual realm, when in fervent reality, there's a whole lot more bigger than us and we can't possibly know what else.  You "say" are searching for the truth, shouldn't you start with something that makes claims to universal in-errancy and infallibility?

But back to point, the question I'm merely asking is 'Why should God heal amputees?'

[defendor]

Stevil, I honestly appreciate your responses, and I quote your arguments not in attempts to belittle or simply debunk, but to help understand the step by step intuitive methods by which these claims are made.

I don't understand this logic. You are saying the book is the truth because the book says that it is the truth.

To an extent, the bible makes various claims to testify to itself.   I also want to mention that in the New Testament, there are many other relations to other scripture and even citations (scripture testifies to scripture).  2 Peter 3: 15-16 clearly testifies to Paul's writings at the time.  All but 2 Old Testament books (Ruth and song of Solomon, I believe) are quoted in the New Testament. So when you have a circular agreement, there has to be some intertwining of truth as it exists in perceptive reality to make it agree.  But the bible makes many claims to truth, and so for the bible to be discredited on all accounts, it has to be discredited on one account, i.e. Wikipedia.

I used this argument on this thread, and Idk if you have had a chance to read it, and I will gladly repost it and open it up for scrutiny

The thing about the manuscripts that support the scriptures is that it is greater than any other ancient text. Over 5,000 manuscripts that make the bible fairly transparent. So the question is not whether it's a reliable source, but whether or not you believe it. Which is a very reasonable doubt. It takes the Holy Spirit to believe it, thats in Ephesians 3:4-5. Do i believe the word of God is inerrant? Yes, but I am not inerrant. Do I believe the bible is infallible? yes, but I am fallible. Islam holds true that the Koran is the precise word for word revelation from God to Mohammed and nothing must be changed for it is written perfection. But really, who's to say one word isn't so much better than another. what i mean by inerrant is the fullness of revelation by God to man through the written word. I think there is some discrepancy of the bible that is open to interpretation, but it is the inerrancy of God in revealing the nature and character of Jesus Christ throughout the entire schema. From Genesis 3 on, the story is laid out for Jesus.

The old testament, is premised on laying out a story of a real God, in real time, with real obstinate people. There is a great emphasis on dates, events, and historical accounts. But the story is not in the words, but in the revelation of the true God into each person.

For Example, the Book of Daniel was written in 500 B.C. and there is a prophecy of a nation that is marching "many nations" under foot. Also the empire will be led by strident, strong man from the west. Then the kingdom will be drastically cut off and split into 4 kingdoms. These 4 kingdoms will become 2 and these 2 will become 1. (Daniel 11)

In 300 B.C. alexander the great marched many nations under foot, was drastically cut off at the time of his death so early in life. His Kingdom was given to his 4 generals, these 4 combined into Ptolemaic and Seleucid empires, and of these empires the Roman Empire emerges.

So as you read this, you immediately see the supernatural. As we make claims to what lays within the Bible are false and what not, we need an accurate understanding of the Bible.

The prerequisite of belief is simply something that is mentioned within the scriptures (which I am suggesting cannot be trusted). In fact is would be hard for me to understand a god that would punish people simply for not knowing that the gods exist, especially given that there is no proof on offer. The belief prerequisite is simply to get people on board with all the other stuff in the scriptures (which also cannot be trusted).
Also a key item is that only Atheists can be selfless as there is no hope of going to heaven for one's good deeds. Theists cannot be selfless, and I am told that selflessness is important in Christianity.

I think the first part of this question, is in a reasonable claim, and I feel that I have made references to that above.  

But to know if God exists or not, is the question.  In mathematics, we find parameters of absolutes to discover end and relative behavior, to get a particular idea of a given function, etc.  So lets make a simple assumption, lets propose God really does exist.  That everything in this universe is completely of his intertwining and doing (just for arguments sake).  God has left enough of his creation, to point to something higher.  Who is naive enough to gaze upon the infinite scale of the universe and say we are IT, the grand pinnacle of everything?

The condemnation factor is also a very real concern and question.  God alone judges the heart.  I have a friend who's dad is a pastor and go on mission trips.  One of the main missionaries has said, that in every untouched culture they meet in the amazon, there is a sect of people that "seek God" and absorb the gospel with Great truth and joy.  In one tribe in particular in the Amazon, there were also prophecies of for 5-6 centuries, that a donkey would lead them out of the village into a canyon where a man with blue eyes would have the words of God printed on banana reeds.  One day, a donkey walked into the middle of the village, walked for 2 days into a cavern, where a missionary with blue eyes had been trapped, who had a bible printed on banana reeds.  God is in the process of revealing himself to everyone, it is all around us.  We're just in a culture so convoluted with beliefs that it is not apparent to us who live in suburbia america. To show this, 50% of the world has not made a call on a cell phone.  If you have 2 tv's and/or a car, you live in the top 2% of the world.  You obviously have a computer.

There is no atheism philosophy

Then what are you trying to defend?

There is no such thing as good and evil. The problem with this stance is that it paints the world in Black and White. It marks individuals as good or evil.
People are capable of being both good and bad, and frequently do both be it intentional or not.
There is a saying "the road to ruin is full of good intention"

I agree, "the road to hell is paved with good intentions".  But you also made a mention to good in that very same statement.  So the question of evil yet arises.  If all morals are essentially no morals at all, and we are the one's who mark good and evil, why did so many Jews mark the holocaust as evil?

In summary I am posturing that the scriptures are possibly the word of the cunning and deceptive Devil rather than god. It cannot be known what is the true source. If you believe in an absolute truth and an objective morality then you should be able to tap into that without the need to revert to scripture.

I'll refer to Christian perspective to help shed light on the situation.  Since we are indwellings of the Holy Spirit, you could almost make a case for how we don't need the written word of God, we have a bit of God with us at all times (which is true)... but I did say almost.  If you are simply gonna make a case that the goodness of God dwells within you (which it may) and all you need to do is reflect on that, I'd completely disagree with you for not even scriptural reasons but philosophical 1. you have the Bible, it is a gift from God, you don't live in poverty in Africa and can't read, you're on a blog, you can find the bible online and 2. You have the exact parameters detailed by historical events, eye witnesses, and Holy Spirit inspired accounts already.  Why try and rewrite scriptures?

So for you, I think to help answer this, I would like to propose a few questions. I would appreciate that you answer as honestly as possible, and there is a point to this and I'm not trying to embarrass you.  Have you ever, done something that disobeys your conscience? Have you ever gotten something wrong?  Do you know everything there is to know?

[Stevil]

Stevil- I do appreciate your response, and appreciate taking the time to expound on that for me, thank you.  But when I read, I feel you gave a great description of what energy can do, but I don't feel the essence of energy was fully adequate.  You gave me great examples  of energy (what it can be) and its mathematical equivalent, and some intricate details on what energy can do, but never really gave the full idea of what energy is?  So what I'm asking for is the ontological argument for energy..?

I'm not sure what you mean by ontological argument for energy. I've done a search for "ontological argument" but got this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontological_argument and this http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ontological-arguments/ which seems to be a religious concept.
Ontology however according to this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology means the philosophical study of the nature of being, existence or reality as such.

With this in mind I have already given you my philosophical take on what is meant by reality, basically the Space construct (3 dimensional coordinate system) as well as the concept of time. Any system that exists within reality can be pin pointed by knowing the Space coordinates and time coordinates. Of course the difficulty comes in defining where 0,0,0 space coordinate is and where time coordinate 0 is. But on a relational perspective, if we suggest that 0,0,0 is the point of singularity of which all matter and energy within our universe is currently travelling away from and if we suggest that time 0 is the point in time when the big band occured, well, given this and the related coordinate of a system (e.g. earth, me, a particular atom, a beam of sunshine, god) we would know exactly where that system is. This is reality, if the item does not have these coordinates then it does not exist within reality.

My philisophical take on existence is that something having these reality coordinates also has substance. This is more difficult to assess. If I stick my finger out and it hits something then obviously it has hit a substance. But on the way to hitting the hard substance I am also pushing it through a substance i.e. the air. the air is made up of atoms and compounds, Hydrogen, Nitrogen, CO2, H2O, O3 etc, these atoms have substance and take up a finite volume of Space. However given enough force e.g. gravity, electro magnetic etc we can compress these atoms into very small volume, the atom is made up of smaller particles e.g. quarks but most of the volume is "empty" space. I am posturing that even quarks can be degraded into pure energy and hence can be compressed into a point of singularity, occupying the same coordinates as other pure energy. so here we have substance that doesn't necessarily reserve a piece of Space and can infact share that Space with other substance. So how do we know that there is substance there? Substance also exerts force on its surroundings e.g. gravity. Light has gravity. I am not sure whether pure energy has gravity. If it did then it might be difficult for it to escape a black hole, and hence we would have an issue with the feasibility for the big bang. Possibly gravity is a result of what energy does when it is in a particle state, We just don't know.

Now this obviously leads us towards the question of what is pure energy? Again a difficult question that we know very little about. Doing a search for it, I find this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy#Forms_of_energy, a search for matter finds http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matter.
The important part here is "In physics and chemistry, matter exhibits both wave-like and particle-like properties, the so-called waveâ€"particle duality"
Here is a discussion with regards to Matter being Energy http://www.physicsforums.com/archive/index.php/t-254886.html and the ability to transform one into the other.

It is hard to know exactly what energy is, but without energy we do not have substance or force, we do not have movement, we do not have heat, we do not have form, we do not have change. Without any of these things, we do not have atoms as atoms are systems comprising of all of the above.
If your god is not made up of energy then your god simply does not exist, it cannot have form, it cannot move, it cannot think, it cannot perform actions, it cannot change its environment let alone itself. I hope this answers your question.

You "say" are searching for the truth, shouldn't you start with something that makes claims to universal in-errancy and infallibility?
'

That could be one approach, to take an already written theory and explore it to suss out if it is real. The problem Atheists have with the various god theories is that they offer no proofs, only conjecture, philosophies and the requirement to believe without expectation of proof.

Another approach would be to look at ones own environment. To poke it, to prode it, to kick the tires (so to speak), to come up with testable theories and to actually perform the tests, to see if these theories stand up to new tests, new discoveries, etc.

It's a personal choice. But I think a great philosophy is for people to let others chose their own path, not to try and evangalise others. Just be tolerant.

[Stevil]

Stevil, I honestly appreciate your responses, and I quote your arguments not in attempts to belittle or simply debunk, but to help understand the step by step intuitive methods by which these claims are made.

I am very happy for you to debunk my ideas, the best ideas hold up to scrutiny, the ones that don't need to be rethought. How can we know unless they are scruitinised?

There is no atheism philosophy

Then what are you trying to defend?

I hope I am not coming across as defensive, I am simply putting forth my thoughts.

But you also made a mention to good in that very same statement.  So the question of evil yet arises.  If all morals are essentially no morals at all, and we are the one's who mark good and evil, why did so many Jews mark the holocaust as evil?

Unfortunately the English language didn't provide me with a better alternative for the word "good" I was not using it in the sense of Good vs Evil, more like a positive event, beneficial maybe. The holocost was terrible and irrational, from the sense of the existence of human kind and treating others how you yourself would like to be treated this was an entirely bad event. Just because Atheists don't subscribe to Good Vs Evil or Sin or Christian Morals it doesn't mean that we lack a sense of how to behave nicely.

So for you, I think to help answer this, I would like to propose a few questions. I would appreciate that you answer as honestly as possible, and there is a point to this and I'm not trying to embarrass you.  Have you ever, done something that disobeys your conscience? Have you ever gotten something wrong?  Do you know everything there is to know?

I have done things that I am not proud of. I am not always nice. I have emotions and can get frustrated or mad, although I am very rarely mad. I appologise to people who I have wronged, but never seek forgiveness from a mythical god or for redemption for my sins. This is similar to how I treat my daughter, when she is naughty, she goes to naughty corner, we talk about the issue, give each other a hug and kiss and move forward. Tolerance and acceptance that people make mistakes is the answer. We don't need the concept of god to resolve our issues.

[defendor]

Stevil- I would again like to thank you for your very intellectual, rational, and civil response.  I understand that you truly do search and also, without being pompous or aggressive, and this demeanor is very illuminating.  

I would like to make a point and pose a few ideas about the ontological arguments.  The essence of ontological arguments does hold religious truth for the statement of "being." So then the offshoots of what really is in "being" and what came into being, how it came into being, etc.  Aristotle had a few dissertations on this.  So this concept is very philosophical.  In my studies of quantum theory as well as my brother's (who's major is drenched in such areas) I have found that science (in a very explanatory and mathematical sense) meets philosophy at the quantum level.  This is all tied to the quandary of energy.  It is very easily deduced that energy exists or else we couldn't explain many of the things that are objectively observable.  But has anyone held energy? We may have held things containing vasts amounts of energy but even as you suggested

"It is hard to know exactly what energy is"

Of course we have many mathematical devices that lead us to the conclusion of the existence of energy, without ever really knowing what it is in being.  We know the ways it works, effects, and forms the surrounding space time continuum, but has yet to show itself in existence.  We know that energy cannot be created or destroyed, and simply changes states.  This is the similar construct with matter, but as you said and science indicates, matter and energy are simply interchangeable.  The essence of energy is not created nor destroyed, but simply in "being" and this being also indicated by E=mc^2, is outside of the constructs of time, (for the speed of light is the constraint of time).  SO with regards to all of this, I have a purely philosophical question for you. If I were to tell you that all the energy in the universe is just an explanation for the Holy Spirit, on what grounds could you disagree with me?


Now in consideration of your "Good vs Evil" construct.  I completely agree. But the questions I am merely posing and the questions I wanted to pose in regards to my ideas I will write in order.  

1.I didn't mean to propose you as defensive, your responses are very well responded to and very orderly conducted. But simply the point of argument you have made are in accordance with 'a' philosophy of atheism, so if there is essentially no philosophy of atheism, what is your point of the debate?

2.  Where in the natural order, have you developed, or humans in general (for observatory facts would agree with that statement) have developed a sense of unknowing compassion for humans in existence, as opposed to not simply a "step on a ladder" to help individuals strive and survive?

3.  This has to refer to the questions I posed about simply obeying a personal moral law

I have done things that I am not proud of. I am not always nice. I have emotions and can get frustrated or mad, although I am very rarely mad. I appologise to people who I have wronged

and also has to do with the statement

If you believe in an absolute truth and an objective morality then you should be able to tap into that without the need to revert to scripture.

So you would agree you would have done something wrong.  And for this purpose I would like to define inerrant and infallible.  
Inerrant, is not being in or of error to truth.  We can be inerrant on a test, by scoring a perfect score.
Infallible, is not having the ability to make or create a fallacy or wrongdoing in the proposed order of a set objective truth.  You may score perfect on a test but the ability to miss a question was always there. You may do right, but the ability to do wrong was always there.

You may on occasion and possibly, even the majority of the time, be inerrant, but as your above quote indicates (I do appreciate the honesty, a virtue most Christians have yet to grasp) you have yet to spend a single 5 seconds of your life as infallible.  So, if by your own standards, you have done things that are not in accordance with your own individually set personal precedent, how is it that you can look to an inner source when the source of inner truth, in being, is fallible?

[Stevil]

In my studies of quantum theory

I would like to know why you asked me twice what energy is? I spent a great deal of time writing up my responses, trying to gauge your level of understanding and to address my response accordingly, I am now feeling that a lot of my time could have been saved (and better spent e.g. reading to my two year old or helping my wife out with the 10 week old) had you taken an alternative approach, e.g. revealed your level of knowledge and simply got to the point in a more timely fashion.

[Stevil]

We know that energy cannot be created or destroyed

By my understanding energy is being created all the time with regards to quntum fluctuations, and as I also understand it +ve energy and -ve energy cancel each other out. This still maintains status quo with regards to Conservation of Energy.

The essence of energy is not created nor destroyed, but simply in "being" and this being also indicated by E=mc^2, is outside of the constructs of time, (for the speed of light is the constraint of time).

This stance is not consistent with the Theory of General relativity. Given that speed of light is seen as constant within this theory and that percieved distance is relative to the motion of the observer and that speed of light = distance/time then time is also relative. Since time is relative to matter/energy then when ever you have matter/energy, you also have time. Hence energy cannot possibly be outside of the constructs of time.