patrick.net

ChristianGuy says

ultimately science cannot explain why it happened or what was the original trigger.

why it happened is a philosophical question. Not scientific in nature. *It just is* that way. Why does the sun rise in the east only? Does that question make sense? I can give an opinion or a belief, but I cannot state any facts as an answer to such question.

Original trigger is matter itself. That's it. There is no other external trigger.

ChristianGuy says

-How did we develop sensory receivers, and what purpose did the sources of those signals have before there were receivers?

Science has gone a long way to answer this question. A lot of our basic sensory perceptions make sense with evolution. Sight and Sound are important to avoid predatory attacks, for example. Has been there since the age of dinosaurs.

There are some perceptions that don't make full sense yet, such as for example: consciousness. But there are scientific progresses made here too.

For example, here are some quotes from Dr. Ramachandran's Phantoms in the Brain book:

For centuries philosophers have assumed that this gap between brain and mind poses a deep epistemological problem-- a barrier that simply cannot be crossed. But is this really true? I agree that the barrier hasn't yet been crossed, but does it follow that it can never be crossed? I'd like to argue that there is in fact no such barrier, no great vertical divide in nature between mind and matter, substance and spirit. Indeed, I believe that this barrier is only apparent that is arises as a result of language. This sort of obstacle emerges when there is any translation from one language to another.

I submit that we are dealing here with two mutually unintelligible languages. One is the language of nerve impulses-- the spatial and temporal patterns of neuronal activity that allow us to see red, for example. The second language, the one that allows us to communicate what we are seeing to others, is a natural spoken tongue like English or German or Japanese-- rarefied, compressed waves of air traveling between you and the listener. Both are languages in the strict technical sense, that is, they are information-rich messages that are intended to convey meaning, across synapses between different brain parts in one case and across the air between two people in the other.

ChristianGuy says

-Are their other types of sensory receivers that we need to yet develop?

who knows? may be, may be not. Science cannot definitively answer something that cannot be verified through experimental observation. Sure it is a limitation, but hey it is much better than blind belief.

ChristianGuy says

Why do I feel responsible for my actions, or have a right to make judgments?

You're talking about free will here I presume. There are experiments conducted to study that as well.

http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110831/full/477023a.html

Is "free will" simply just a notion in your brain but not a real thing? Such questions are being asked.

ChristianGuy says

What purpose is there for life? Why should I value life?

Philosophical question as opposed to scientific. You're confusing both these fields and thereby making the water muddy. Science can theorize or postulate what it cannot see, but still it needs to be verified through some form of empirical observation to know if the theory holds water.

ChristianGuy says

-If we are purely physical beings, where/how did thought and emotions arise?

Thoughts and emotions are simply chemical reactions in your brain. Your own body is a phantom, one that your brain has temporarily constructed purely for convenience :)

ChristianGuy says

I disagree that religion=blind faith.

at least most western religions are. if you ask a person to believe a world was created in 6 days, that is blind faith.

ChristianGuy says

One reason for faith is that it is inherent within us.

That could just be an evolutionary flaw you know? :)

ChristianGuy says

All peoples from all parts of the world have had spiritual inclinations

Sure, who doesn't? as long as we don't wage wars and impose that same blind faith on others, humanity will probably be okay.

ChristianGuy says

As C.S. Lewis said

Leap of faith is a good thing, same like intuition. But eventually, you cannot simply rely on faith to know if something is true or not. Observation has limitations, but that's the best we got to prove/disprove.

@austrian_man

The fact is that science cannot be neatly compartmentalized and separated from the other facts of life.

Some of your answers illustrate the slippery slope of believing in matter only:

-If all we are is chemical reactions, then we have absolutely no moral obligation.
-If all things are matter only, then no matter should be assigned more value than other - pulling a weed in your garden = killing a human.
-What is the point of even talking about this?

I know that I am more than matter, through experience. I know that I have free will, and I'm not merely reactionary. Therefore, I know that you are wrong. :)

ChristianGuy says

If all we are is chemical reactions, then we have absolutely no moral obligation.

Isn't moral obligation simply a construct of the human mind? :) think again.

ChristianGuy says

If all things are matter only, then no matter should be assigned more value than other - pulling a weed in your garden = killing a human.

but matter evolves as well. there will always be weak matter as opposed to strong matter, the stronger ones displace the weaker ones. Natural process of survival of the fittest. So a weed is a weaker matter than a human, humans take the weed out of their way. 'value' again is just a construct of the human mind. Nothing greater than that. For some people pulling a weed might be equal to killing a human. For most, not so much.

ChristianGuy says

What is the point of even talking about this?

Reason through observation. It is not a religion to observe and conclude facts.

ChristianGuy says

I know that I am more than matter, through experience.

your experience is a construct of your brain. so you are no more than matter. you could say you are refined matter as opposed to crude matter like an asteroid.

ChristianGuy says

I know that I have free will, and I'm not merely reactionary.

THAT statement is the definition of 'slippery slope'. LOL. You know that you have free will and that is the proof? How can we verify independently that there is such a thing as free will? What if you're lying?

ChristianGuy says

Therefore, I know that you are wrong. :)

Axiomatic conclusion from a false premise. Very definition of blind belief.

@austrian_man:

I'll go ahead and assume you believe it is OK to murder.

Personally, I don't murder or even attempt to hurt another person. I don't fear the consequences, but rather because I value life in general. I do however, need to use self-control, which is free will. I do not have to prove this to you. I'm telling you that my own consciousness is a rational reason to believe that we are more than simply matter.

I believe that if you are honest with yourself you can independently verify that you have free will. However, if you cannot trust your own experience, you should seriously consider any future attempts to convince others of anything. :)

ChristianGuy says

The fact is that science cannot be neatly compartmentalized and separated from the other facts of life.

Science strives to answer the question "How?"

Religion is better suited and should strive to answer the question "Why?"

Religion is 100% wrong every time it attempts to answer the question of "How?"

As long as science stays out of "Why" it is fine. The scientific method breaks down in the search for "Why" because the method is based upon measurables.

ChristianGuy says

I'll go ahead and assume you believe it is OK to murder.

LOL, why would you make an unclarified assumption? Is it because of your blind belief?

I don't believe it is OK to murder, but I recognize that killing (of not just humans, but animals and plants) occur on a regular basis. Killing humans also happens for natural resources and other personal gains. Killing animals and plants are for food. Without the act of killing, you can't consume food. So some acts of killing is required for survival.

ChristianGuy says

I don't fear the consequences, but rather because I value life in general.

do you value the life of a cow or that of a plant? Isn't that as valuable as a human? do you have some grades on how you value life? "value" is just a construct. That much should be clear if you answer these questions.

ChristianGuy says

I'm telling you that my own consciousness is a rational reason to believe that we are more than simply matter.

LOL, it is enough for you to "believe". That's it. It doesn't make what you say as a "fact". Learn to distinguish facts, opinions and beliefs.

ChristianGuy says

I believe that if you are honest with yourself you can independently verify that you have free will.

if you're honest with yourself, you should not "believe" anything blindly. you should verify through observation and understand rather than blindly accept anything. So no - I don't blindly accept that I have free will.

ChristianGuy says

However, if you cannot trust your own experience, you should seriously consider any future attempts to convince others of anything. :)

I don't have any agenda to convince anyone. I am just asking questions, but I don't blindly believe in anything.

People who blindly believe are the ones who are forced to convince others. Just like how you're doing now.

@david1

I suppose that you think that science can inform us how the earth and life were formed? Like I said earlier, it takes huge blind leaps to reach these conclusions.

Science cannot work independently. Austrian_man has concluded, through science, that people are simply matter. This has the following implications:

1. There is no such thing as free will
2. There is no such thing as morals - no right, no wrong
3. We are blindly led by the chemical reactions in our brains
4. There is no purpose in life

Doesn't anybody else have a problem with this?

ChristianGuy says

1. There is no such thing as free will

I am not saying there's no free will. There's enough reason to doubt if there is. I don't make any assumptions.

ChristianGuy says

2. There is no such thing as morals - no right, no wrong

As such, if no humans existed on the planet - yes there is no such thing as right or wrong. Right or wrong stems from thought, which originates from the human brain.

ChristianGuy says

We are blindly led by the chemical reactions in our brains

Nope, I did not say that. Think of the human brain like a constantly evolving, positive (reinforcing) feedback loop system. Here's more on the connectome concept.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/HA7GwKXfJB0

ChristianGuy says

There is no purpose in life

Did I say your mental constructs don't matter at all? To each one, his own.

@austrian_man

To judge something requires morals. You have called moral obligation "simply a construct of the human mind". Seems logical enough...anyway, I'll ask you: Why don't you believe it is OK to murder?

According to your belief system, you cannot possibly ever verify that you have a free will. Maybe I'm wrong, though - will you please prepare an experiment to test this? ;)

It's hard to take you seriously when you say that you're just asking questions. You've said, among other things: "Original trigger is matter itself. That's it. There is no other external trigger." That seems more like an assertion than a question, now doesn't it?

OK, I'm done. You can have the last word

ChristianGuy says

According to your belief system, you cannot possibly ever verify that you have a free will. Maybe I'm wrong, though - will you please prepare an experiment to test this? ;)

You still cannot distinguish facts, opinions and beliefs. I don't have a belief system, because I question stuff.

The Nature article I quoted conducts several experiments to show that there is enough doubt on free will existence.

ChristianGuy says

"Original trigger is matter itself. That's it. There is no other external trigger." That seems more like an assertion than a question, now doesn't it?

You're right, that statement is an assertion -- but it is an assertion based on overwhelming scientific evidence. Just like the Big Bang, Evolution.

OTOH, religion consists of blind assertions without any proof.

Humans are social animals, and are conditioned for BOTH individual and group survival, since the two compliment each other. What helps the group survive is moral, and by extension, what helps the species survive.

Murder doesn't work, since murder breaks down group harmony and puts individual survival at risk. If one person can kill at whim without defined rules, then nobody in the group is safe, even from their own group members.

Theft follows the same lines. If my stuff can be taken from me out of pure greed or desire, then everybody's stuff is at risk and the group loses cohesion. Effort is wasted watching each other suspiciously, as the pack of wolves begins to circle the encampment, looking for a tasty human to chow on...

On the other end, there is reciprocity. You wash my back, I wash yours. I'll wash your back today without the expectation that you wash my back tomorrow, just someday in the future. What I won't tolerate is you getting incredibly rich, but not sharing with the group. This is what is falsely called "Envy" in today's society but is really a "Lack of Reciprocity". This is why we gladly tolerate the wealth of a Jobs or Edison, but do not tolerate the wealth of a Wall St. Speculator whose 'job creating' abilities are theoretical at best. Whereas we can all play with the new Shiny.

In any case, there is plenty of examples of injustice and immorality in the Bible. For example, killing all the Midianites, except the virgins. In fact, God was mad at the Israelites because at first, they spared all the women and children, not just the virgins.

(Numbers 31)

Or sending a bear to tear apart some kids who made fun of a Prophet for his bald head. A little severe, eh?

(2nd Kings, 23-25)

If a guy who got teased by a bunch of kids decided to unleash a rabid wolf in the playground where they hung out, would you consider that moral or immoral?

austrian_man says

Why does the sun rise in the east only? Does that question make sense? I can give an opinion or a belief, but I cannot state any facts as an answer to such question.

The sun only rises in the east because the Earth rotates counter-clockwise along it's axis when viewed looking at the north pole. And the reason the Earth rotates counter-clockwise is that it also revolves around the sun counter-clockwise and the Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum (I know, big words) means that the spinning debris of the planetary disk would cause all the planets to initially rotate counter-clockwise with their north poles pointed normal to the planetary disk.

Now, planets can and do flip due to those Newtonian physical forces involving gravitational interactions with other objects. That's why Venus rotates clockwise. These laws of physics are well-known and agree with observation to as many digits as we can measure. I.e., we know they are not b.s. because you don't get that lucky guessing. I'm thinking of a real number between 0 and 1 with 57 decimal places. Think you can guess what it is?

No one has mentioned this so I thought I'd contribute a bit;
The beliefs of the students aren't important in the classroom. The students are not there to learn religion, nor are they there to teach it. The students are there to learn the science upon which they will base a career upon. The class is teaching a fundamental principle of science. I do not require them to believe it as absolute truth, but rather to understand the theory and apply its principles in their field of practice.
If they cannot do this, if their beliefs conflict with learning to such a degree that they cannot tolerate a discussion on the topic, then they have no business in the classroom and should seek a carrer that is more hospitable to the entertainment of beliefs such as unicorns, santa and elves. A student that walks out on a lecture is an arrogant student. Let them walk out and then lock the doors. There are others who will take their place and do a better job.

ChristianGuy says

Austrian_man has concluded, through science, that people are simply matter. This has the following implications:

1. There is no such thing as free will
2. There is no such thing as morals - no right, no wrong
3. We are blindly led by the chemical reactions in our brains
4. There is no purpose in life

people are simply matter.

Correct.

There is no such thing as free will

Correct. You are composed entirely of atoms. Atoms obey the laws of physics and never deviate. Therefore, your entire body obeys the laws of physics and never deviates.

Your brain is part of your body and also is composed entirely of atoms that obey the laws of physics and never deviate. Therefore, your brain obeys the laws of physics and never deviates.

Your brain is your mind, your sentience, and who you are as a person. Therefore, your mind and thus you obey the laws of physics and never deviate.

That's the truth regardless of whether or not you are rational enough to accept it. The fact that you don't want this to be the truth does not have any bearing on whether or not it is the truth. If our desires determined the truth, I'd be dating Taylor Swift right now.

The initial conditions of the universe immediately after the big bang determined that you and I are having this conversation now. However, the Heisenberg Uncertainly Principle means that we could not predict this conversation even though it was inevitable. The universe is deterministic but not predictable.

Free will is not only an illusion, but a meaningless one at that. What would even be the difference between a universe in which you had free will and one in which you didn't? Other than the ability to defy the laws of nature, what is the difference? And as for defying the laws of nature, why is it you can disregard the laws of chemistry and electronics to make your brain do anything it wants, but you can't violate the law of gravity? Why would some laws be optional (subject to free will) and others not?

2. There is no such thing as morals - no right, no wrong

Incorrect. You do make decisions, as do all computers including Turing Machines. Free will is neither necessary for decision making, nor is it helpful. Free will does not explain decision making or contribute in any material way to the discussion of decision making, morality, ethics, or wisdom. It is a vague and meaningless distraction.

3. We are blindly led by the chemical reactions in our brains

This statement is meaningless and therefore, by definition, incorrect.

The laws of physics including the laws of chemistry, electricity, and electronics is what enables our brains to be effective (contrary to many of the posts here) decision makers. The neurological pathways allow our brains to analyze and react to information and to adapt over time. This is hardly a blind process. Intelligence is an emergent property of the universe. It is quite beautiful when you realize this.

4. There is no purpose in life

Incorrect. Philosophers have debated the meaning of life for millennia. Yet, they never solved the problem. This is because philosophers are idiots. If they were smart, they'd be scientists, mathematicians, or engineers instead.

So without any pontification, I'll tell you the meaning of life.

The meaning of life is to produce more life. That's it.

That's the reason why every nook and cranny of this planet that can support life does. It's the reason for every single physical and mental development in nature including emotions, music, and even religion. It's the reason why birds sing and men drive sports cars. It's the reason people die of AIDS and other nasty diseases. It's the cause of all good and evil.

Life produces more life. And that quest determines all the behavior you see around you in your species and every other one.

There are many practical applications of understanding the meaning of life. One is understanding how good and evil works so that you can create a more socially just society. Another application is that you can calculate the probability of another space fairing species existing in our galaxy. Spoiler alert: it's astronomically low. But I'll save that for another thread.

Of course, when I said "The meaning of life is to produce more life.", I'm talking about the purpose of life itself. The purpose of your sentient existence can be more than self-replication and the continuing of your species.

Dan8267 says

the spinning debris of the planetary disk would cause all the planets to initially rotate counter-clockwise with their north poles pointed normal to the planetary disk.

Dan -- I think you're describing the physics behind the question, I was hinting more towards why the physics is the way it is. I get the physics, but nobody can explain why the mechanism works in such manner. That's what ChristianGuy was asking and that's what I am explaining.

Some phenomena are just what they are. *it just is* the way it is. Why is the Law of conservation of energy true? It is true because we observe it everyday. But that doesn't convince a lot of people, apparently! LOL.

Addendum

ChristianGuy's post illustrates why people are so reluctant to give up religion, faith, and all that mysticism bullshit. The operate under the false assumption that the existence of god and an afterlife and free will are necessary for human beings to be moral and kind to one another. They think that if those three things are removed, mothers will hate their babies and all of society would fall apart. This could not be further from the truth.

Not only is religion and faith no necessary for morality, compassion, and altruistic, they are in fact counter-productive. Once you abandon ancient myths as the basis of your morality, you can learn how morality really works and how it doesn't. You can get a more detailed, mathematical knowledge of morality and thus apply morality far more accurately to real world situations which tend to be a lot messier than parables.

Morality, like all things, should be a science and an engineering discipline rather than an art. When mathematics first came out, it was an art an a religion, but it became a science. Then physics made the transition from mysticism to science. Then chemistry. Then even biology. At every stage, people said, that can't be a science because it involves the creation of the universe or the creation of a human baby. Those people were always wrong. Some day morality will be a science with all the precision of physics. The question is, will you live to see that day.

austrian_man says

Why is the Law of conservation of energy true?

Why are the laws of physics what they are instead of something else? Well, certainly there can't be a contradiction. So how many ways can you create a set of natural laws and avoid contradiction? At least one way: the way the laws of nature are. Maybe more.

If there are more than one way to create a set of natural laws that don't contradict, then perhaps the laws are are one particular set instead of another is completely arbitrary and random. The only reason we're here to discuss that is because the particular set of laws allow for life and complex, intelligent life at that. That's called The Anthropic Principle.

Either we're just lucky that the one and only universe has a set of laws that allow for lifeforms such as ourselves, or there are many universes with variations of the laws of physics, most of which are devoid of life and we observe a universe that seems to be improbably tuned for life simply because if it weren't, we wouldn't be here to observe it.

austrian_man says

Here's more on the connectome concept.

Ah, good video. Brings me back to neural networks class. Not sure if we need the term "connectome". It seems to mean the exact same thing as "neural network". Speaking of which, is there a link to download the neural net of that worm? I'd like to run a virtual worm and play with it's brain.

Dan8267 says

At least one way: the way the laws of nature are. Maybe more.

Yep. One can think of the inviolable laws (such as conservation of energy) as the basic configuration of this universe. Then of course, there are attempts being made to explain what happened prior to the Big Bang - The Big Crunch.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclic_model

Dan8267 says

Not sure if we need the term "connectome". It seems to mean the exact same thing as "neural network".

Neural network can be thought as an adaptive subset of the connectome. Connectome term is similar to the genome. It indicates the comprehensive mapping of the human brain. Functional connectivity is first understood and then we proceed to anatomical connectivity. It is super-interesting to study the human brain.

I don't know if there's a link for the worm connectome. I'll check out and let you know.

austrian_man says

Big Bang - The Big Crunch.

The Big Crunch hypothesis was discredited in 1998 when the age of the universe was determined and it was also determined that the expansion of the universe is accelerating. The Big Crunch hypothesis was popular because human beings are programmed to love cycles and fear death. Big Crunch allowed them to avoid thinking about the death of the universe.

austrian_man says

One can think of the inviolable laws (such as conservation of energy) as the basic configuration of this universe.

The point is that there are no inviolable natural laws. If a law was violable, it wouldn't be a law.

It's like when people think they can use mind-over-matter to cure diseases like the common cold or infertility. Yet, no one has ever shown mind-over-matter to fix something a lot easier to verify like growing a new limb. Funny how things like mind-over-matter only work in situations that are vague and unverifiable.

Dan8267 says

The Big Crunch hypothesis was discredited in 1998

The cyclical model is still popular among physicists.

See this: http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2010/oct/16/cycles-time-roger-penrose-review

Roger Penrose recently wrote about "aeons", wherein the Big Bang is simultaneously the end and the beginning of the universe.

Dan8267,

I respect your views and you make a lot of valid points, however...

If everything you assert is true, than aren't your very assertions also just matter and energy? And aren't ChristianGuy's assertions also just matter and energy? So how can anyone say your argument is better than ChristianGuy's (or visa versa)? Both are just matter and energy, so how can one form of matter and energy be "better" than another?

I agree that a lot of religion is BS, but it seems that "radical" determinism/materialism is ultimately self-defeating. Truth and falsehood, right and wrong, good and bad all become meaningless if there is nothing more than mass and energy behaving in absolutely pre-determined fashion, right?

Example: the debate over humans eating meat. In a radically deterministic/matericalistic universe, debate over the "rightness" or "wrongness" of the practice is meaningless: atoms and energy (in the form of a human) are predetermined to occaisonally interact with the atoms and energy (in the form of an animal) that results in the death of the animal. We call this interaction "killing and eating." This interation "just is."

The same line of reasoning holds for every other moral issue. Pollution of the environment? It just is. Genocide? It just is. Even survival itself...why is life (human or not) better than non-life? In a strictly materialistic, deterministic universe, everything is pre-determined and nothing really matters. We're left with radical fatalism. Why even get out of bed in the morning?

Radical materialism also seems to undermine the very pursuit of scientific inquiry. After all, if I there is no distinction between my inquiring mind and the matter, energy, and laws of physics that I am analyzing; how can I really come to any meaningful conclusions? The very concept of knowledge, like so many other familiar categories, is detroyed by radical materialism/determinism.

Is radical materialism even falsifiable? How could it be proven...or dis-proven? If I'm a radical materialist, I will always say (no matter what happens) that said events were predetermined. How convenient!

Radical materialism isn't right...it isn't even wrong! Just like so many other grandiose ideologies (religious or secular).

austrian_man says

The cyclical model is still popular among physicists.

See this: http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2010/oct/16/cycles-time-roger-penrose-review

Although the article mentions cycles, the article does not make Penrose's conjecture sound anything like the Big Crunch Theory. It does not mention the force of gravity causing the universe to contract. Then again, the article doesn't really say much about what Penrose is proposing.

Dan8267 says

Penrose's conjecture sound anything like the Big Crunch Theory

It's not like the Big Crunch, but it is a Conformal Cyclical Cosmology Model. Penrose is not a fan of String theory I gather. So his theory (speculative one so far) is conforming more to General theory of relativity.

This amazon review seems useful: http://www.amazon.com/review/RR89NMD7MILDP/ref=cm_cr_pr_viewpnt#RR89NMD7MILDP

wthrfrk80 says

If everything you assert is true

I wasn't aware that I asserted anything. I said we are made of atoms, but I consider that to be a pretty well accepted fact. Do I really need to prove the existence of atoms and that your body is made up of various carbon, oxygen, nitrogen, hydrogen, etc. atoms? Look, I firmly believe in the burden of proof, but you have to assume some level of common knowledge to have a productive conversation.

wthrfrk80 says

If everything you assert is true, than aren't your very assertions also just matter and energy?

The terms assertions , arguments, proofs, evidence, and facts are abstract concepts. Abstract concepts are physically manifested by energy an matter, yes, but that doesn't mean they are the same thing. For example, when you read the word "dog" in a book, you aren't actually seeing a dog or even a word. You are seeing a splat of ink in a form that you recognize as the word "dog" in your language. That doesn't mean words don't exist or that words are splats of ink.

wthrfrk80 says

If everything you assert is true, than aren't your very assertions also just matter and energy? And aren't ChristianGuy's assertions also just matter and energy? So how can anyone say your argument is better than ChristianGuy's (or visa versa)? Both are just matter and energy, so how can one form of matter and energy be "better" than another?

Yes, ChristianGuy and I are both communicating using matter and energy. However, the contents of are arguments are not simply "equal" because they all reduce to matter and energy or words and sentences. Let's say Bob and Joe are arguing. Bob says the square root of two is rational and Joe says it's irrational. One of them is right and can be proven right. The arguments that Bob can make must be inferior to the best possible argument Joe can make because Joe is actually correct. Joe could present a proof of the irrationality of the square root of two. Bob cannot make any valid argument that the root is rational. The fact that they are both using chalk and a blackboard makes no difference.

wthrfrk80 says

I agree that a lot of religion is BS, but it seems that "radical" determinism/materialism is ultimately self-defeating. Truth and falsehood, right and wrong, good and bad all become meaningless if there is nothing more than mass and energy behaving in absolutely pre-determined fashion, right?

Example: the debate over humans eating meat. In a radically deterministic/matericalistic universe, debate over the "rightness" or "wrongness" of the practice is meaningless: atoms and energy (in the form of a human) are predetermined to occaisonally interact with the atoms and energy (in the form of an animal) that results in the death of the animal. We call this interaction "killing and eating." This interation "just is."

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here, but it seems that you are confusing the terms right/wrong with good/evil. By right, I mean correct; by wrong, I mean incorrect. Perhaps a bit confusing since English overloads the terms. The issues of correct/incorrect versus good/evil are completely different.

I do need to get around to writing about the nature of morality. I think you're asking the question, "If morality isn't absolute, can it even exist?". I don't want to give a short answer because it will be misinterpreted. Wait for my next tirade.

wthrfrk80 says

Is radical materialism even falsifiable? How could it be proven...or dis-proven?

It was proven on Monday, August 6, 1945 in Hiroshima, Japan. Atomic theory, or radical materialism as you prefer, could have been disproved by proving a number of alternative, incompatible theories.

Dan8267 says

The terms assertions , arguments, proofs, evidence, and facts are abstract concepts.

I find it very useful to distinguish b/w facts, opinions and beliefs because it brings a great deal of clarity to the discussion.

See this: http://writing.colostate.edu/guides/teaching/co300man/pop12d.cfm

Facts are verifiable and indisputable: we are made of atoms. This is a fact. There is no way to dispute this and it is easily verifiable.

Opinions are judgments based on facts. If they're reasonable, honest then we can listen to them and re-affirm or change our judgments. Being pro-choice or pro-life can be an opinion based on what you know factually about conception.

Beliefs are just convictions based on faith/religion etc. This is where it is mostly bullshit. For example, thinking that the Earth is very young based on some faith is clearly bullshit.

austrian_man says

I find it very useful to distinguish b/w facts, opinions and beliefs because it brings a great deal of clarity to the discussion.

Completely agree with one small change.

Opinions are judgments/convictions, but not necessarily based on facts. "I like vanilla ice cream more than chocolate ice cream." isn't really based on a fact. Neither is "I prefer sunrises to sunsets.".

Not sure if there is a difference between a judgment and a conviction. And I hate to use the word belief because it's so nebulous. Technically, I believe the world is round. It just happens that I based this belief on knowledge, not faith. But the word is often used in the context of faith.

Dan8267 says

It was proven on Monday, August 6, 1945 in Hiroshima, Japan. Atomic theory, or radical materialism as you prefer, could have been disproved by proving a number of alternative, incompatible theories

Dan,

I wasn't arguing about the nature of physical matter (whether or not matter is made up of atoms). I was arguing against the belief that physical matter (and energy) is ALL THERE IS. I was NOT arguing against atomic theory. I think that was pretty clear from my post.

wthrfrk80 says

I was arguing against the belief that physical matter (and energy) is ALL THERE IS.

Obviously, there is more in the universe than matter and energy. There is space and time, both of which are discreet. However, everything in the universe is, by definition, physical. What would it mean for a non-physical thing to exist?

Dan8267 says

There is space and time, both of which are discreet.

I would argue that space and time are mental constructs of the human mind; they are not proven to exist independent of matter and energy. Space is defined as the dimensions of the matter existence. Without matter, is there any need for the mental construct of space?

Time is much more intriguing. For the most part, laws of physics assume time to be reversible, except: the Second law of thermodynamics, which states that entropy must increase over time (see Entropy); the cosmological arrow of time, which points away from the Big Bang, and the radiative arrow of time, caused by light only traveling forwards in time (see light cone). Those are MASSIVE exceptions to be sure, still the arrow of time could be an illusion. The jury is out on that. [See Sean Carroll's book on The Quest for the Ultimate Theory of Time for example].

If the Cyclical model (as proposed by Roger Penrose) is true, then Time is beginning-less and endless. Infinite cycles of time, more-like.

Dan8267 says

What would it mean for a non-physical thing to exist?

:) This much is very true.

austrian_man says

I would argue that space and time are mental constructs of the human mind; they are not proven to exist independent of matter and energy.

Clearly both space and time are not merely constructs of the human imagination. Where you are in space matters as far as the gravity and heat you feel from the sun. Length is not imaginary as there are gravitational tidal forces. Time clearly affects the matter in your body as well as the decay of radioactive particles. As to whether or not time and space could exist without matter, I don't know. Matter bends the space around it, but could "flat" space exist without the presence of matter and/or energy? Can space itself be viewed as a form of energy? Sorry, but that's beyond my current understanding of the subject matter.

austrian_man says

Time is much more intriguing. For the most part, laws of physics assume time to be reversible, except: the Second law of thermodynamics

Steven Hawkins wrote about this issue in his book A Brief History of Time. It's been years since I've read that text, but if I remember correctly, Hawkins proposed that the Second Law of Thermodynamics would be conserved by a shrinking universe reversing the direction of time. Glasses pieces would rise from the ground, reassemble themselves, and form a bowl that comes to rest on a table. Hawkins later rescinded this hypothesis stating that the direction of time would not reverse if the universe stopped expanding and started shrinking.

The thing is, the Second Law of Thermodynamics is a hell of an exception. It's arguably the most important law of nature in the universe.

austrian_man says

If the Cyclical model (as proposed by Roger Penrose) is true, then Time is beginning-less and endless. Infinite cycles of time, more-like.

Alternatively, time could be finite but without any edges. Asking what happened a minute before the Big Bang could be like asking what is located one mile north of the North Pole. It might be a meaningless question.

However, the fact that there are many fringe questions about the weird nature of the universe, does not give me reason to answers questions with "because god wants it that way" instead of a more honest "I don't know".

Dan8267 says

Where you are in space matters as far as the gravity and heat you feel from the sun. Length is not imaginary as there are gravitational tidal forces.

See now you're talking about forces and energy within the matter. All of these are numerical representations of the concepts. Space in itself is a numerical representation. Sure it describes matter in a precise manner that is amenable to physics, but space as a concept exists because of matter + energy.

Dan8267 says

Time clearly affects the matter in your body as well as the decay of radioactive particles. As to whether or not time and space could exist without matter, I don't know

Nothing exists without matter & energy. Matter pervades everywhere and energy is a property of the matter. It can be just potential, like the massive singularity containing all potential energy just prior to the big bang and it can be kinetic, as the universe is expanding.

Dan8267 says

Hawkins later rescinded this hypothesis stating that the direction of time would not reverse if the universe stopped expanding and started shrinking.

The direction of the time doesn't have to reverse, but you can get back to where you started if it is circular.

Dan8267 says

However, the fact that there are many fringe questions about the weird nature of the universe, does not give me reason to answers questions with "because god wants it that way" instead of a more honest "I don't know".

Good point. Hope Ok and ChristianGuy see this.

Ok says

How is them saying that they don't accept that the universe was created over billions of years make them unqualified to practice medicine?

Funny, did you know medicine as a science was created by muslim and "creationist" doctors?

Dan8267 says

Evolution is both a theory and a fact.

Nope, in science you can't have such a thing. If it's a theory it is not a fact. Newtons mechanics was a theory, we know now it was not a fact. There are possible revisions to Einstein's theory, exactly because it's a scientific theory.

Theory of Evolution constantly claims it's a fact, which exactly makes it a religious belief, not a scientific theory. What's worse, evolution classes are structures like typical cultists indoctrinations. Vulgar Darwinism they preach ignores facts or gives them extremely improbable exlpanations. It has nothing with trying to discover any truth.

So, someone belonging to a different cult has a resonable cause to avoid Evolution worshiping sessions.

Danaseb says

Advocating that God directly created the universe instantly is rejecting basic science.

How come?

What do you mean by "instantly", it makes no sense for God, since He created time the same way He created space, matter, and energy.

His existense simply is not within time.

michaelsch says

Nope, in science you can't have such a thing. If it's a theory it is not a fact

I can't believe after all I've written on this site, I still have to correct scientifically illiterate people about the most basic things, even definitions. These are things you should have learned in high school if not elementary school. But to recap…

When scientist and mathematicians use the word "theory", they don't mean the same thing that Joe Schmo illiterate means. The word theory does not mean "guess" like Joe Schmo uses it. That is a corruption of the word that is not the way it's used in the scientific or mathematical communities. Set Theory is not a guess.

But let's listen to a scientist explain the term. Stephen J. Gould, Evolution as Fact and Theory; Discover, May 1981

In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact"--part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus the power of the creationist argument: evolution is "only" a theory and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is worse than a fact, and scientists can't even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it? Indeed, President Reagan echoed this argument before an evangelical group in Dallas when he said (in what I devoutly hope was campaign rhetoric): "Well, it is a theory. It is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science--that is, not believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was."

Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory--natural selection--to explain the mechanism of evolution.

There you have it. Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. Straight from the scientist and science historian's mouth. I hope this once and for all puts to bed the false belief that a scientific theory is just an unproven guess.

If it doesn't, then read the following:
Talk Origins
Not Just a Theory
Is evolution a fact or a theory?
Scientific Laws, Hypotheses, and Theories

michaelsch says

So, someone belonging to a different cult has a resonable cause to avoid Evolution worshiping sessions.

Pray tell, how old is the Earth.

michaelsch says

Funny, did you know medicine as a science was created by muslim and "creationist" doctors?

The oldest known Egyptian remedies go back to 3000 BC. As far back as 2750 BC the Egyptians had performed rudimentary forms of surgery. The Edwin Smith papyrus states the Egyptians dealt with illnesses by examination and doing prognosis. Who Invented Medicine?

Slightly older than Islam. Please get your facts right.

In any case, no one "invented" medicine as medicinal practices predate our species. Even chimps practice herbal medicine. I guess they have souls then.

As for science, the term and the practice in the modern sense didn't come about until the time of Francis Bacon (1561 – 1626) and Descartes (1596 – 1650).

michaelsch says

His existense simply is not within time.

Yeah, that's meaningful. And you base that statement on?