LaGrande, your responses have become meaningless to me. For someone to say that they do not believe in cause and that action and reaction are not the same as cause and effect is so far out as to be inconsequential. Why do most scientists, if not all, explore cause and effect if there is no such thing?
I suspect you say such nonsense so as to avoid the choice I suggested of Uncaused Cause or Intelligent Design by a creator. If there is no such thing as cause you can avoid that decision so you simply declare cause null and void.
Why do your persistently avoid such questions as those involving the abstracts of Love, Truth, Life, Beauty, Music Appreciation, etc.? Where is the scientific proof of those? Subject them to the Scientific Method of proof. Or do you simply declare them null and void? Where is your proof of No-God?
I can understand your feeling of freedom. I too felt that way when I went from a pretend believer to accommodate my early upbringing to being an atheist. It was such a feeling of relief! I felt as if great chains had been lifted from my shoulders. No more judgmental, all-knowing God whose rules were so strict that no one could follow them consistently. No more not having fun just to satisfy some moral tyrant. It felt great!
However, I thought more and studied more and early on realized that atheism is also a religion whose No-God was just as impossible to prove as my God described in the Bible. Faith is belief in the unprovable and the unseeable in the physical realm and you embrace that in your atheism as much as I do in my belief.
Biblical scholars and objective anthropologists searched for the historical Jesus and have found the description of his travels and physical presence to be essentially true, far more so than the anthropologists in search of proof of evolution.
I admire the pursuit of objectivity in realms where it is beneficial to a definable outcome. exDemMom’s pursuit of objectivity in teaching and following the Scientific Method is an example of that. However, objectivity in and of itself is cold and indifferent, as it should be, but there are areas of life, of everyday living, where it is a hindrance. Subject the abstracts I mentioned to objectivity and see what it leaves you. It is almost impossible to do and often you destroy the very thing you are examining with your objectivity.
Can one be objective about love? You can examine whether the object of love is worthy of it but the feeling of love often remains even after deciding that it is not. We often continue to pursue the illusive object of love even after we know it is futile. So, what is love, objectively?
What about art, music, and literature? Why do some like one thing and others another? Why are some works considered classics and persist as such over time? Is there a be-cause?
You brought up Einstein’s E=MC2, his General Theory of Relativity. Although that theory has lead to may others and to many other conclusions, is it provable at this time? Some experiments have suggested that the speed of light may not be a constant as originally thought. If C is not constant, where does that leave us?
Einstein failed in his attempt to find and describe the essence he proposed in his Unifying Theory. Is it possible that essence is a manifestation of a Divine Creator of it all? He suggested that perhaps it was.
I hope your feeling of freedom lasts but it didn’t for me. I had to find something I considered richer in value. I found it in the Trinity of the Bible. As others have said, objectivity and science do not exclude a belief in God. More than likely those are just aspects of God’s creation. The more you study, the closer you may get, if you open your mind to other possibilities. However, with an opinion that there is no such thing as cause, I doubt it.
Many of us have dealt with LG for years now and it is apparent that he living in a fantasy land of his own making.
Whatever happened to him in the past to cause him to reject the false god he knew led him to shut out the real one as well. One of Satan’s most effective strategies, IMO.
It’s really a shame because what most atheists reject as being God is something any sane person would reject as being God. But they are, as a whole, unwilling to give the real one a chance just because they got burned with a counterfeit, as if that’s God’s fault.
Scientist don't explore 'cause and effect', they explore 'how' and 'what'. It is much like a child asking 'Why?' it is a question that science can't answer. 'Cause and effect' is an Aristotle method of philosophy (discredited I might add) of metaphysics. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality
I suspect you say such nonsense so as to avoid the choice I suggested of Uncaused Cause or Intelligent Design by a creator. If there is no such thing as cause you can avoid that decision so you simply declare cause null and void.
It isn't nonsense, but that is correct it avoids circular arguments inherent in philosophy.
Why do your persistently avoid such questions as those involving the abstracts of Love, Truth, Life, Beauty, Music Appreciation, etc.? Where is the scientific proof of those? Subject them to the Scientific Method of proof.
That is easy, sexual attraction can be measured, pupil dilation, etc. And the rest can also be measured by the responses they elicit.
Or do you simply declare them null and void? Where is your proof of No-God?
I can't prove that there is no god, that is a black swan fallacy, but I can falsify your concept of god. Do you understand the difference.
Faith is belief in the unprovable and the unseeable in the physical realm and you embrace that in your atheism as much as I do in my belief.
No, I seek truth and beauty. Do you understand the difference?
Can one be objective about love? You can examine whether the object of love is worthy of it but the feeling of love often remains even after deciding that it is not. We often continue to pursue the illusive object of love even after we know it is futile. So, what is love, objectively?
Neural pathways with rewards. If you want to be blown away check out Toxoplasma.
You brought up Einstein’s E=MC2, his General Theory of Relativity. Although that theory has lead to may others and to many other conclusions, is it provable at this time? Some experiments have suggested that the speed of light may not be a constant as originally thought. If C is not constant, where does that leave us?
Proof? We can't prove it we can only falsify it and C is not a constant it is a limit, do you understand the difference? All of our experimental evidence supports the the theory of relativity, out to at least 14 decimal places.
Einstein failed in his attempt to find and describe the essence he proposed in his Unifying Theory. Is it possible that essence is a manifestation of a Divine Creator of it all? He suggested that perhaps it was.
Einstein didn't believe in the Judea/Christian God. He used God as a metaphor for Truth.
I hope your feeling of freedom lasts but it didn’t for me. I had to find something I considered richer in value. I found it in the Trinity of the Bible. As others have said, objectivity and science do not exclude a belief in God. More than likely those are just aspects of God’s creation. The more you study, the closer you may get, if you open your mind to other possibilities. However, with an opinion that there is no such thing as cause, I doubt it.
Your idea of freedom is not mine, "No more judgmental, all-knowing God whose rules were so strict that no one could follow them consistently. No more not having fun just to satisfy some moral tyrant. It felt great!"
My idea of freedom is the opening of my eyes and seeing reality for what it is, and being responsible for my own actions.
You mean there was a time when they weren't? I's so sorry to hear that. I'm glad you've overcome your dysfunctional thinking patterns.
You mean there was a time when they weren't? I'm so sorry to hear that. I'm glad you've overcome your dysfunctional thinking patterns.