- Hot
- New
- Categories...
- Producer's Lounge
- Producer's Vault
- The Gulch: Live! (New)
- Ask the Gulch!
- Going Galt
- Books
- Business
- Classifieds
- Culture
- Economics
- Education
- Entertainment
- Government
- History
- Humor
- Legislation
- Movies
- News
- Philosophy
- Pics
- Politics
- Science
- Technology
- Video
- The Gulch: Best of
- The Gulch: Bugs
- The Gulch: Feature Requests
- The Gulch: Featured Producers
- The Gulch: General
- The Gulch: Introductions
- The Gulch: Local
- The Gulch: Promotions
- Marketplace
- Members
- Store
- More...
Well, I guess that shows my age a little! In my opinion we could use a large dose of positive motivation these day. In these troubled times I have found it easier to advance my goals because most of the competition has called it quits.
― Ralph Waldo Emerson
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5LnPnbhyj...
Before reading: err umm, I dunno about that.
After reading: while I agree with Ecclesiastes 9:11, time and chance matter, but in our lives there remains a chunk, big or small, which our own will determines. Seize it.
Science is not taking issues far outside your expertise, deciding what you wish were true, and then looking for evidence to support it.
The fact that science discovers fraud is actually a good thing about science. It invites criticism.
Here is an example of what some people call luck because it was so successful so quickly. We published biographical comic books. One day, my son was at a mall in San Diego and he noticed only one store that seemed to be very busy. It was a sports memorabilia store. He went to the counter and asked who was the hottest sports star. The clerk answered Nolan Ryan, who had just pitched his 7th no-hitter. That afternoon we got busy putting together a comic book about Nolan Ryan. We scoured the library and book stores and looked up newspaper sports pages. Wrote the story had it illustrated and printed within the month. Fifty thousand copies flew out our warehouse. The demand went on and on until we sold a record number. Were we ever lucky! No we weren't. You could say, insightful, smart and hard working, but luck? Forget about it!
After snoozing through my education, full of the Hank Reardon ethos, I went o work learning a trade -- photography which led to a studio and a retail camera store. After 20 years the
profession(s) became unprofitable so I moved into publishing and finished with two more careers, selling software and playing music. I was fortunate to be able to go into careers that were fun and actually provided an income. Now as a retiree, I spend my time being a gadfly and inciter of discontent.
did you ever read Gus Lee's book China Boy?
He went to West Point and part of the story surrounds a huge mystery that happened there in the 70s? It had to do with cheating but pretty suspenseful and fast read. I think it's also on audio-he is also Christian and his daughter runs the charitable arm of a big Christian band-I am not familiar with.
Are all us Christians supposed to stick together? It's a rather large club, you know. But you're always welcome to join. :-)
I would rather you question how atheists can reconcile their position of no higher power with the existence of the universe, the fact that there is life in the universe, and sentient life as well.
Could the universe have popped out of nothingness? If not, then who created it?
Could life have occurred on it's own from basic molecules? And if so, then why doesn't it occur anymore?
And finally, how in the entirety of the existence of the earth has there only been one animal that has developed sentience? If it was merely a random mutation, then how come that mutation hasn't happened in other animals, or plants for that matter? Nearly every other mutation has occurred in multiple species, but not the ability to think - to have an ability to understand past, present, and future.
I have an answer to those questions to which atheists cannot provide a rational answer.
"Atheist" is an interesting categorization of a non-homogeneous group who simply want evidence that the dogma variously championed by organized religion has value, and this value is adequate for them to vest power (directly or indirectly) in the religion.
Have you read Bart Ehrman's "Misquoting Jesus"? It quite powerfully debunks at least a literal interpretation of the bible, most certainly the New Testament.
A less arrogant belief in a greater power is at least plausible, which might turn out to be another door in Physics, or it might turn out to be a very old race of beings, who knows, maybe we are living in a computer program like Tron. I do not understand rational people specifically associating as "Christian", "Muslim", et al.
Separately, many elements of thinking and reason humans long-held as unique are in fact found in animals. Sentience is clearly present in animals. I think you meant a different word, but it is perhaps more arrogant to believe humans are so far above animals (from a capability perspective, not a animal rights/vegetarian perspective) than it is to believe humans and animals were not created by god.
BTW, I greatly appreciate this argument. Clearly demonstrated by your posts, you are a very learned and intelligent person that I quite respect, although disagree with in this area.
Animals do have a recollection of past, present and future. Animals understand causality. Animals can count. Other than the skill/facility in each of these cognitive areas, the main thing animals lack is written language (as we humans also lacked some 4,000 years ago) and abstraction (probably). What is quite arguable is whether a written language accounts for a majority of the shortcomings of animals cognitive abilities. If dolphins or apes could write, how quickly would they abstract and develop "standing on the shoulders of giants" as we have. If one were not taught to read and write, how sophisticated would this person appear above animals.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/200...
There are many other examples of untrained animals that can count and having a sense of numbers, including primates. One quick article:
http://www.newscientist.com/gallery/mg20...
As noted in the above article, animals with some counting ability can more readily sense the difference between numbers when the difference is large (e.g. 6 and 21). Humans also do this much faster than smaller differences (e.g. 31 and 45).
Animals clearly perceive causality, a near future. Animals also reinforce their own behaviors to develop positive outcomes:
http://io9.com/5828440/banana-hiding-wea...
I believe the gap you are identifying is Episodic Memory, which relates to recalling the specific episode in detail or making plans far into the future. Primates have rudimentary skills in this area, far inferior to humans. Clearly animals do not posses the ability to plan far into the future. However, 50 years ago people were largely unaware animals could count, use tools or do a multitude of things. For example, research to discriminate between culture and instinct among other examples has shown we had a "world is flat" view of animal cognition. Given how far this has gone, it seems quite unreasonable to assert they never will (over millennia not years); that they cannot be trained to and then pass it on to other animals or that there is some fundamental capability we have that they can never have.
Again, I'm not making some ethical argument here that animals are as important as we are. Any human has a wealth of learned information and understanding far in excess of any animal, and are at least that much more valuable. Setting aside any other moral distinction.
Start a new one, Herb!
It sounds like your condemning people who admit they don't know those things yet and favoring just making up an answer out of whole cloth.
My answer is not made up from whole cloth. It is based on an actual person and the teachings that he gave that have endured for over 2000 years. There are other signs (I'd point you to the Shroud of Turin, and the recent instance of a boy who knew things that he could not have known and claims that he learned those things in heaven) but usually atheists claim that these are fake or false, yet cannot explain them any other way.
Explain how the Shroud of Turin was created. Mere molecules thick of the essence that creates the image, and created in a fashion that it only makes sense when shaped as if draped over a body. Carbon dating has been contradictory and since this test consumes some of the fabric, it is unlikely to be allowed again.
The thing about the Shroud just seems like god of the gaps.
Also, sometimes people will talk about believing in things like evolution. We don't believe in scientific claims, we accept the evidence. We're open to new evidence. Religious claims, like the golden rule, is not something religious people want to disprove. It's an axiom, a starting point, a belief.
I agree religious beliefs and scientific claims are completely different things. They do not need to be nasty toward each other. I don't approve of the recent atheists who dismiss religion as stupid. I often do feel like religious people are arguing over their imaginary friend, but I try to be humble and accept I'm not theologian, and it's not productive for me to dismiss people out of hand. I known many very intelligent and scientific people who believe in religion devoutly.
As for the child, again, you can choose to believe that they coached him and that he is lying. That is your free will to do so. You say that it is after the fact, but how else could it be? Can you describe your dream to me while you are still dreaming? He knew things that he could not have known. I choose to believe he is telling the truth. I may be foolish to do so, for there have been many charlatans throughout history. In any case, my conviction does not harm you - and in fact, benefits you immeasurably by creating myself and millions of others of like mind to be persons that do not seek to harm others with a desire only to live respectfully and in harmony with others. Isn't that the crux of Objectivism? The fact that we get there from a different place should not cause us to be in conflict.
You asked Herb to start the discussion. I did instead - yet few have decided to engage (and I put you and db in that group). There are those who think that Objectivism and Christianity are diametrically opposed on things like wealth/money. I do not believe so and have put forth my rationale for believing so. Heck, even CircuitGuy chimed in and seems that we actually have something in agreement.
I have mostly been tending my own posts and comments today. I'll get to it. :)
they see her philosophy and reasoning as flawed in the metaphysics and epistemology. Where Objectivism starts with A is A they start with God, God says A is A when I want it to be so.
Check out ChristianEgoist's site (by the same name). I think he very articulately discusses your question.
http://thechristianegoist.wordpress.com/...
There is no evidence for a God. In fact, that is the only evidence there is or could be for there not being a God.
I have no evidence for the lack of existence of pink flying elephants. Show proof for the non-existence of pink flying elephants.
There is no evidence. Pushing an assertion that God exists and you provide no evidence. The lack of evidence IS evidence.
How is this different than those asserting man made global warming-providing little to no scientific evidence, yet those asking for scientific evidence are called deniers?! The lack of evidence rests firmly in the religious camp not Objectivism.
The proof that there is no god takes far more of a leap of faith than to believe that there is a god. I will continue to argue that agnosticism should be the correct stance for an objectivist, but the odds that life on Earth evolved without some external intervention is the argument that requires more proof.
Whether you agree with all that is in the link below, I would argue that the odds described therein are actually far longer than those cited in that link.
I do agree that evolution has happened, but the list of 322 items in the link below doesn't even begin to address the number of things that would have to go right for the formation of DNA in the most primitive of organisms, let alone intelligent life.
http://pleaseconvinceme.com/2012/evidenc...
I find this meaningless b/c the claim of existence of god(s) is not scientifically falsifiable. It's not in the realm of science.
As you said in your other post, this claim is not scientifically falsifiable. We can't make a hypothesis and do and experiment. We do not know.
I think you define atheist as asserting there's no god. I call that strong atheism. If you just have no reason to believe in gods, by my definition that's atheism.
Agnostic means someone on the fence about it, thinking maybe there is a god. It could also mean someone asserting the existence of a god is fundamentally unknowable.
Actually there is a lot of evidence for the existence of the God of the Bible. The history of the Jewish people is quite remarkable, for instance. There were literally dozens of prophecies that Christians cited as having been fulfilled in the person of Jesus. Jesus performed many acts that were viewed as miracles at the time. Raising someone from the dead and then being raised from the dead himself from a guarded tomb are extremely outlandish claims. The Jews did not want to give Jesus' followers the opportunity to rob the grave and claim his resurrection and went to Pontius Pilate to insist on Roman guards being put at the tomb site. It is somehow fitting that this discussion should come today. In the Catholic Church, the Sunday after Easter is the day on which the story of "Doubting Thomas" occurs. Thomas refuses to believe unless he can probe Jesus' hands and his side - which he then did, before bringing news of Jesus' resurrection to India, where he was martyred.
The apostle Paul writes that Jesus appeared to over 500 people following Jesus' resurrection, and in quite a few different venues.
Consequently, there is actually quite a lot of evidence. It may not be enough to cause everyone to come to the conclusion that there is a god, but it is evidence.
There are but three responses to Jesus' claims. Atheists will almost assuredly say that he was a lunatic, but that cannot explain his miraculous powers. Some may call him a liar. That is a hard stance to take. Who would become a martyr to what amounts to a lie? Finally, some will recognize him as their lord. I do not see a fourth possible response.
There are so many Jesus-like stories, based on heresay as well-that is not evidence. You choose which pieces of information to accept as factual without applying the same level of rigorous standards you demand in science.
http://www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm
Regarding the heresay argument, I won't argue with you. All recorded history is heresay.
Indeed, the four books of the story of Jesus are composites. If Jesus had not resurrected from the dead, he would have been buried in the annals of history.
Of what use in such a situation would be free-will?
If you accept a creator who gave us free-will then all else is rational.
And what do you call the Shroud of Turin? Pretty much a miraculous polaroid, if you ask me.
why is the "image" cut off at the neck? the carbon dating doesn't jive and the most recent earthquake stretch is psuedo scientific. The carbon dating does jive with a period in which christian relics were highly prized in Europe, following the Crusades' pillaging. and why does the image match perfectly with European drawings and paintings of Jesus in the early middle ages? It's not even likely a carpenter from that time and place looked like that.
To whit: Jesus caused a blind man to see. Brought a dead man back to life. Turned water to wine. Healed a leper. Caused a lame man to be able to walk. Fed 5000 people with 5 loaves and 2 fishes and had leftovers. Rose from the dead after 3 days and displayed himself to over 500 people. The Shroud of Turin shows a person scourged, exhibiting wounds on his head his side, hands and feet consistent with the story of the crucifixion and produced in a manner unknown (even today) with mere microns of artifact and in a manner that only represents the info when draped as it would be over a body. None of these things are possible by humans.
These are merely some of innumerable examples of evidence that I could cite. You will likely say that they don't rise to a sufficient level for you to accept. That is your right. But do not say that because you reject them, that they do not exist.
The most recent example is the boy that states things that he could not have known and says that he learned these things in heaven. Again, you can reject this evidence and claim that it is brainwashing, outright lying, or some sort of mass hallucination.
http://www.galtsgulchonline.com/TheChris...
http://www.usma.edu/scpme/NCEA/sitepages...
"Chance favors only the prepared mind". I have lived by that ever since.
You seem to be making a point about luck vs statistical predictions. Can you expound?
Each reaction has a probability step.
p = 1 - exp(-ksubi*dt)
dt = differential time step
ksubi is the rate constant, k, for reactant i.
Mom, 'destiny' has NO PREDICTIVE VALUE. It only looks at past events and blames their outcome on 'destiny.' Quite useless in managing your life.
I find that 'luck' is similarly backward-looking, or maybe post hoc, ergo propter hoc... a great explanation for what happened and useless for future decision-making.
my 2c.
Oh, and in a tiny way like the Global Warming 'models'... lousy models make for lousy Monte Carlo results, too! :)
Hard work and preparation allow instances of "luck" to occur, but "luck" can never take the place of hard work and preparation.
So when someone is going in for an operation or is moving to a new state, I can wish them "Good Luck" or "Bon Chance" (or "Bon Adventure" in the case of the move). It is a useful word, but should not be used as a substitute for 'work'.
Life is a crapshoot, however, and I do not mind hoping that 'forces beyond my control' positively affect me or people I like.
Jan
It's not cut off at the neck. It is a full body "picture" showing a scourged body with a piercing in the side and holes in the hands/feet, and wounds such as would be created had one been forced to wear a crown of thorns.
If you go to this link http://shroudstory.com/2010/10/23/shroud... you will see a 3-D sculpture of the data encapsulated in the shroud. This data only makes sense when draped in this topographic fashion. Read the article on the right side of the page, it's very intriguing.