Posted on 05/25/2005 3:41:22 AM PDT by billorites
When I am wearing my computer scientist hat, 1 + 1 = 0 usually.
When I am wearing my numerical analyst hat, 1 + 1 generally bigger than 1 but smaller than 4; depending on the size of 1.
Therefore, by definition, where the philosophy prevails, science itself is small minded, tunnel visioned, incomplete.
Well, it is worth bearing in mind that I also reject the type of frequent assertions one sees that science cannot examine and discover the supernatural (if there's anything there to discover) or whatever else may be external to this universe's space-time for that matter. I am my own little personal Tower of Babylon! =)
For any atheist, the quality of life after physical death is zero. No wonder they are so interested in avoiding it.
I am neutral with regard to what may come after life; our minds are energy fields and it's not entirely clear what happens to them once we die. My suspicion is that they just dissipate, but we don't know for certain. However, bear in mind that whatever, if anything, may come after life is something other than life, or else it would not be after life, now would it?
Indeed, this is the only path to immortality for an atheist who is not a metaphysical naturalist.
Well, my suspicion is that if we were to achieve perpetual youth, then most people would choose to die sooner or later, but that's just my guess. However, if one wanted immortality, then that's the only path we can have any confidence about.
Moreover, I am not properly described as an atheist, but rather as an agnostic. Since I believe that the universe is not self-contained - that it was originated of, from, or by something outside of itself - and moreover that this something may have been something that we could classify as a deity, I am not properly speaking an atheist.
Finally, as I have said before, it is not that I'm convinced gods don't exist, but rather that I am convinced no gods exist that one need concern oneself with from a practical standpoint.
If I were to bet my life on it, however, I would certainly bet that there are no gods as the term is commonly understood.
To the contrary, abiogenesis (life from non-life) requires a definition of non-life v life. Likewise, how could one assert they have overcome death without a definition of life v death.
Nonetheless, the question of abiogenesis also has no great practical bearing. We are here, however we came to be here. That's the only practical definition we require in that regard.
PS. I am not ignoring your comments on defining life v non-life; I'm just not prepared/inclined to discuss them at the moment.
For very large values of one place mark.
"It's just as if a man were wounded with an arrow thickly smeared with poison. His friends & companions, kinsmen & relatives would provide him with a surgeon, and the man would say, 'I won't have this arrow removed until I know whether the man who wounded me was a noble warrior, a priest, a merchant, or a worker.' He would say, 'I won't have this arrow removed until I know the given name & clan name of the man who wounded me... until I know whether he was tall, medium, or short... until I know whether he was dark, ruddy-brown, or golden-colored... until I know his home village, town, or city... until I know whether the bow with which I was wounded was a long bow or a crossbow... until I know whether the bowstring with which I was wounded was fiber, bamboo threads, sinew, hemp, or bark... until I know whether the shaft with which I was wounded was wild or cultivated... until I know whether the feathers of the shaft with which I was wounded were those of a vulture, a stork, a hawk, a peacock, or another bird... until I know whether the shaft with which I was wounded was bound with the sinew of an ox, a water buffalo, a langur, or a monkey.' He would say, 'I won't have this arrow removed until I know whether the shaft with which I was wounded was that of a common arrow, a curved arrow, a barbed, a calf-toothed, or an oleander arrow.' The man would die and those things would still remain unknown to him."
So, there ya go!
I get along fine in life. People who demand that I accept their particular unproven viewpoint are frustrated, however. You post a simple terminating summation and prove my point, its result is rational. Ad Hominems prove your desperate lack of substance.
you: I didn't notice this posted earlier. Not looking to debate, but for the record, I consider all three premises as quite false. In fact, the first two should be well on their way to achievement within the next century (a couple centuries at most) and the third as well within this next millennium.
Jeepers, AntiGuv, forgive me for saying so, but this is nutz. How can you rationally expect that man can gain sovereign control over nature and the universe -- which seems to be what your proposal amounts to -- when he cannot even gain sovereign control over himself???
I suppose it is "pointless" to debate this issue. So consider this reply just for the record, too.
Man does not require sovereign control over the nature and the universe to achieve those things.
PS. And no, I will have to decline. I consider ignorant statements unforgivable. If there were any sign that you'd actually investigated and contemplated the matter, then I'd consider forgiving you. Sorry.
That is no more different than the probability of a needle touching a line as I have described. That has been my point all along. You can't "stop".
Beautifully put, marron. Yet it does take all kinds to make a universe, and we all have to get along.
My main point is that science does not have ALL the answers. It is one of two branches of the total episteme, the other being the so-called humanities including philosophy, theology, cosmology, psychology, et al. To me, it is the leading theoretical thinkers from both branches that make the discoveries that end up benefiting mankind.
Science cannot make man "good," but then neither can philosophy. But at least philosophy asks questions about the nature of human existence and its prospects. It engages the great questions of Life in a way that science never does. At least, not so far.
And so when folks tell me that some day science is going to "cure mortality," to abolish death, I just have to ask: How is it going to do that, when it doesn't even seem to know what Life is?
The point, which everyone gets but obtuse old you, is that the limit of the calculation gives a number well known to be irrational. Consequently rational arithmetic is not closed under that limit operation and the formula you posted contains the operation and hence it can have an irrational result.
And please try to bear in mind that a pretty sentence containing nonsense is still nonsense no matter how pretty it is.
Whew! I’m glad you clarified that you are agnostic – I was fixing to have to abandon my habit of referring to metaphysical naturalists with a parenthetical “atheists” following. It is always true that metaphysical naturalists are atheists but not necessarily true that all atheists are metaphysical naturalists though I had never met one until you.
On the other point, when you actually meet the One resurrected from the dead, Jesus Christ, then I’m confident you will understand what comes next.
One final point before we leave this sidebar discussion – it is very curious to me that you have formulated an opinion about the beginning with regard to cosmology but not with regard to life.
LOLOLOLOL!!!!!! Simply splendid, Alamo-Girl!
AntiGuv wrote in answer to the question of What is life/non-life in Nature?: "[this] is a 'meta' question with no real practical bearing. It serves to pass the time of philosophes and mystics, but achieves little more."
What is a "meta-question?" Is there some new practice whereby a person can just stick the prefix "meta" on something and find justification to avoid the subject matter altogether?
Strangely, atheists seem in a certain sense to be quite "reduced" human beings: They reduce their own possibilities by denying God and Spirit. One practical way the reduction works is by refusing to engage the most vital questions of human existence, reducing such things to epiphenomena or outright hallucinations. Any thing the atheist (and any other type of ideologue) doesn't want to think about is simply, conveniently flushed; and then he goes on his merry way, hardly suspecting that the "flushed stuff" is what most vitally pertains to his own existential being, in the here and now and beyond.
Further, it seems to me they reduce themselves when they insist on exiling God and Spirit from the universe. Of course, the very attempt is futile, since i don't think God is planning on "leaving" anytime soon. Still, the attempt to banish Him has very ill effects on the human beings seeking this end, and also on the societies that they help to constitute. FWIW.
Anyhoot, I do pray for atheists, that somehow the Grace of God will bring them to their senses.... I am sure many of them would not appreciate my little efforts on their behalf.
That is incorrect, I have most certainly formulated an opinion with regard to the beginning of life. When I sit out on my front deck and gaze at the trees and the wildlife I don't fabricate this stark disjunction with the elements surrounding them. I envision the ecosystem as but an extension of the earth, reaching up to the skies, with the same essence coursing through all of it. I regard life as an inherent extension of the properties of this universe, that perpetually attempts to organize itself even as entropy inevitably breaks it all down. Wherever the elements of the universe are arranged in such manner that they might organize organically, then they will do so, and the longer they are serendipitously graced with a stable environment, they will arrange themselves in ever more complex forms, until at some juncture they organize themselves into something like us, that can then turn around and master the less organized properties of the universe, and shape them into yet more elaborate forms and functions.
And, as it were, I do not envision mankind or any of his constructs as apart from nature and the properties of the universe itself. Whatever we are and whatever we do and whatever we make is perfectly and completely natural.
I really don't care that much what silly nonsense you want to post, but just don't ascribe it to me and we will get along OK.
I join with you in praying for all atheists and agnostics!
Your post reminds me of the challenge that you and Right Wing Professor had begun earlier on this thread - that a "fulfilled atheist" is an oxymoron.
How can one be “fulfilled” when he sees himself as an epiphenomenon of his physical brain? What is there to fill for him but his skull with a few more brain cells? And what is the point of seeking recognition at all if the man really thinks he is just an epiphenomenon of the brain?
IMHO, by denying God and Spirit the true atheist life is both shallow and meaningless.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.