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.
I ask about love and you give me measurements of physical reactions to sexual arousal. Does that mean you think love is strictly sexual arousal? What about brotherly love, love of mankind, love of God, etc.?
What about the love of art, a sunset, a symphony, etc.? Do they illicit measurable reactions?
Regardless, you are giving me symptoms without bothering with analyzing the cause of the symptoms (there is that word again.). It is hard to avoid, isn't it?
Scientist don't explore 'cause and effect', they explore 'how' and 'what'.
Which comes first, the "how" or the "what"? Aren't you just playing childish games with semantics? Cause/effect, action/reaction, what/how. Is there a real intrinsic, meaningful difference?
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.
Sure I do. You can't prove a negative but you can disprove anything else through semantical gymnastics. Therefore, you choose nothingness as that is the only thing that cannot be disproved according to your methods. After all, like you, I can just refuse to recognize the existence of your proof.
I appreciate your repeatedly asking me if I understand. Although keeping up with your brilliance is a challenge, and I break into a sweat under the strain, I am trying hard to keep up but I am dazzled by your use of logic terms to describe illogic. Thank you for your patience.
By the way, you dismissed Aristotle's cause and effect philosophy as discredited, but wasn't the methodology of logic discussed in there somewhere? Is logic philosophy and if so, does that discredit it, too?
No, I seek truth and beauty. Do you understand the difference?
Again, thanks for asking, but how do you determine truth and beauty? Do they lead to sexual arousal so that you can then measure your reactions to them? Do you hook yourself to a biofeedback machine for that purpose. That must make concerts and lectures cumbersome.
Before moving on, you agreed that you couldn't prove No-God but that is what atheism is, no-god, yet you deny that you accept no-god on faith just as I accept God on faith. How is your faith superior to mine?
Neural pathways with rewards. If you want to be blown away check out Toxoplasma.
As best as I can determine, Toxoplasma is a neural disease caused by a parasite. It does not blow me away as one can easily theorize the same possibility without the need for a parasite. I suggested something similar early in the thread as bb and I discussed Bacon's five senses theory. I also asked you if you saw man as simply contained in his own box and as a species that simply evolved like all the other species. I also mention B.F. Skinner and his Beyond Freedom and Dignity which says something similar. I suppose you realize, of course you do, you are brilliant, that idea denies free will. I assume you do, too.
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.
I am struggling to keep up, but we are again dealing with semantics. C may be a limit instead of a constant but for the purpose of solving the equation, E=MC2, it is treated as a constant. Yet, some have hypothesized that it can be exceeded.
Einstein didn't believe in the Judea/Christian God. He used God as a metaphor for Truth.
Christians also see God as Truth and Truth as a manifestation of God. It is quite possible that we and Einstein, and even you for that matter, are describing the same thing in different ways? We attribute it to God and you refuse to attribute it. In fact, you deny that there is anything to which to attribute it. It just is.
Are you sure Einstein didn't attribute it to God even though he did not define God? Surely he didn't have to use that term if that is not what he meant.
My idea of freedom is the opening of my eyes and seeing reality for what it is, ...
With all your brilliance and your ability to disprove anything, can't you see that you cannot "know" reality? You can only assume reality! There is much evidence that eye-witness testimony is unreliable. We know all the senses and their interpretations are unreliable. With all the advances in science the scientists still cannot determine whether the essence of things physical, the subatomic entities, are particles or energy waves. So, if we cannot be sure of the basics how can be be sure of the results much less our interpretations of them?
I am sure you will correct me in my errors but I tried valiantly to understand your reasoning.