CreateDebate


A4B4's Waterfall RSS

This personal waterfall shows you all of A4B4's arguments, looking across every debate.
1 point

What you're saying is that Jesus is irrelevant to Islam by Christian standards... That is not a valid argument.

By the same measure, one could say that Jesus is irrelevant to Christianity by Muslim standards, because the Christian account of Jesus does not fit exactly the same bill as the Muslim account of Jesus.

Please try again.

2 points

Math is the language used to communicate Science. The Science is still there, with or without Math, the question is whether it can be understood or communicated. Math, on the other hand, is a construct used to convey Scientific understanding. Without Science, Math would be useless. That is why the Nobel Prize is not offered for Math, although it is for various Scientific and Economic realms.

Moreover, the majority of the most famous Mathematicians were, in fact, Scientists. Math was created by Scientists to explain Science.

1 point

I don't know much about Richard Dawkins, but I do know that he considers deists to be atheists. In the most literal sense of the word, yes, deists are a-theistic. But, by every other measure, deists are not atheists. Many people consider themselves to be spiritual, but not religious. Again, Dawkins uses the most literal interpretation and classifies these people as non-religious.

Setting Dawkins interpretation of the facts aside, and looking at the facts themselves, the truth is much more complicated. More educated people tend to be less religious, but more spiritual -- that is, attending religious services more often but having less faith in organized religion.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/7729/does-more-educated-really-less-religious.aspx

1 point

The way you have worded your arguments is very good. I agree with the questions you ask, which I unfortunately failed to articulate so concisely as you. There is no proof as to whether the universe had a beginning or has always been, but from a logical (and philosophical) standpoint, I believe it is more likely that the universe did have a beginning. The most logical explanation -- which I personally believe -- is a divine Creator.

On a personal note, I believe a near eternity could spent digging and vesting more and more into a strictly scientific explanation of the universe. The reasoning behind this comes from the philosophical and spiritual side of me, which I could not possible articulate here. However, it also seems consistent with a trend emerging within the scientific community.

Another vein of my argument notes that, while matter is very predictable, the mind is not so much. People who have studied the mind, and indeed people who have tried to reproduce the mind through mechanisms such as genetic algorithms and artificial intelligence, have all encountered a seemingly insurmountable obstacle in quantifying the mind. (With my degree in Electromechanical engineering, I've worked a fair amount in the field of robotics and artificial intelligence, specifically as applied to machine vision algorithms.) So much mystery surrounds the mind and what it means to be alive, just as so much mystery surrounds the beginning of the universe, the end of the universe, and the ultimate question of why? I cannot help but see the similarities, draw parallels, and reach such a conclusion as some sort of divine presence behind the scenes.

As we are establishing, the existence of God is possible. Here is where I argue it is moreover plausible.

1 point

While I agree with your reasoning, that doesn't mean that the existence of God is fact. Rather, it means it is plausible.

1 point

Please see the debate I'm having with protazoa, just a little bit up this page.

1 point

Do you mind if I ask what your credentials are? For the record, I have a Bachelor's degree in Electromechanical engineering. I work full time as an engineer. I tutored lower division, Calculus-based physics for four years. I did not take any upper division physics courses while in college.

First of all, the current Big Crunch theory relies on more than gravity. There is evidence that the universe is expanding with increasing velocity. (Read up on the Hubble Volume if you don't believe me.) Dark energy was hypothesized to explain this, but it lacks scientific evidence. Any legitimate scientific, modern theory dealing with the beginning or ultimate fate of the universe must reconcile this -- including the Big Crunch. (The Big Crunch in its present form reconciles this with an assumption that dark energy will eventually have a reverse effect.) The only reason I afforded some exceptions is that there are alternative explanations to dark energy which I've not read up on. Still, dark energy is the most widely accepted among the scientific community.

What's more, String Theory / M-Theory suggests that gravitons are not contained to our readily perceivable universe. Gravity, contrary to what you imply, is one of the least understood physical phenomena. The difficulty reconciling gravity with the other fundamental forces is what ultimately stumped Einstein, and eludes us to this day. (This is where String Theory / M-Theory has gained its popularity, as it has come closest to being a unified field theory.)

Second, you're arguing semantics, based on just one Blogger's post -- and distorting what he says at that. If, as Mr. Philen says, possible means it does not violate logical or physical law, then it is possible that a banana could spontaneously appear in front of me. According to String Theory / M-Theory, it is possible that some number of strings could suddenly constructively interfere and produce matter in front of me that wasn't there a second ago.

Mr. Philen says, "To say that something is plausible is to indicate that it has a higher probability than the merely possible - it is believable, it makes sense." That a banana might appear in front of me, though possible, is nonsensical -- it is not plausible. The existence of God, on the other hand, does have some logical merit.

However, the existence of God lacks evidence. Therefore, it is certainly not proven. You will also note that Mr. Philen groups probable and proven, because probable is a statistical likelihood of something happening or existing.

Third, when did the Second Law of Thermodynamics become the Conservation of Matter? At any rate, no. The Conservation of Matter only applies to Classical Mechanics. That matter can be converted to energy, and vice versa, is at least part of Einstein's Theory of Relativity. And the Theory of Relativity, unlike everything else we've discussed up to now, has been proven.

But at any rate, I think you're missing an important point. The creation of physics does not need to follow the same physical laws. After all, did the Big Bang follow the same laws of physics of our universe? That's like binding the hands of a writer by the rules of his book.

1 point

I'm no expert in this field, but to the best of my knowledge, the Big Crunch theory, as well as most other theories regarding the beginning and ultimate fate of the universe, rely on the existence of dark matter and dark energy. My point is that both of these things have not been shown to exist -- they have been hypothesized to explain what we cannot otherwise explain scientifically. This is where I see similarity.

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

As for providing evidence that God exists, I have never pretended to be able to do that. My argument is simply that, as things stand now, the existence of God remains plausible.

1 point

So, you're arguing that the watchmaker argument is invalid, because it fails to answer who created the watchmaker? In this case, the idea of a Creator seems extraneous. In this case, the universe has always been. Logically, it might always be, as well. This is a valid scientific theory.

However, the watchmaker argument is arguing something very similar. Rather than a universe that always is, the watchmaker argument suggests that there is a watchmaker that always is.

So, ultimately, we're arguing for either something that has always existed, or for someone that has always existed. Both arguments are completely valid, and altogether not very dissimilar.

1 point

What you're arguing is a point I touched on previously. We don't know that there was a Big Crunch necessarily. We can conjecture that the universe will expand and collapse, but the scientific evidence to prove that, or that the universe is in any way cyclic, is as non-existent as the proof for God. However, it has logical merit, and there is no evidence to disprove it -- therefore, it is considered a valid scientific theory.

But, the existence of God also has logical merit and no scientific evidence to disprove it. And, that parts of the Bible may be scientifically incorrect, or that certain cultural impressions of God may be logically without merit, does not change this.

1 point

The facts are inconclusive in this domain. And I would not choose faith over unequivocal fact.

However, I dare say you have much more faith than you might realize. For example, how do you know that you cannot breathe underwater? Sure, I have heard that humans can't breathe underwater. I haven't seen it in person, but even if I had, would that necessarily mean that I couldn't breathe underwater? As I do believe in evolution (to practically the same extent as Carl Sagan, for what it's worth), I recognize that genetic mutations are constantly occurring. I have not had my lungs biopsied, for comparison with the lung of a being that has drowned. For all I know, perhaps I could breathe underwater!

Nonetheless, I choose to hold my breath underwater because I believe trying to breathe water will kill me. I have accepted this on faith -- faith that what I've heard about the lethality of attempting to breathe water is true, and faith that I am no different from those who have drowned.

So here's a question: When does a fact become a fact? At a ninety-percent confidence interval? A ninety-five percent confidence interval?

Sadly, facts are often much less black-and-white than we all wish they were. Statistics sometimes have anomalies. Scientists are human and therefore interject their own subjectivity. Studies are often paid for my organizations with special interests.

Esteemed medical researchers once declared that smoking cigarettes posed no health risk. I have known chronic smokers who have outlived health-conscious individuals who still died of natural causes. Just the same, maybe my lungs have mutated cilia and macrophages that would be capable of expelling cigarette smoke.

In my humble opinion -- and this is my opinion -- wisdom is knowing when to have faith. (Such as with the health consequences of smoking or the lethality of breathing water.)

1 point

Thank you for arguing my point! :)

There is a difference between not believing in God and believing there is no God -- the same difference between agnosticism and atheism. If you will review my posts, you will see that I am technically arguing for agnosticism and attempting to refute atheism. Not once in this debate have I argued that God does exist, for the very reasons you pointed out. (Although I have stated that I do believe in God, on good faith that the readers of this debate are capable of discerning objectivity from subjectivity.)

However, when one believes there is no God, one does in fact believe something. One believes that the physical capacity for the universe has always existed. I am arguing that possibility is as inexplicable and dubious as the possibility of God.

Forgive me if I have mistaken the content of his or her original post. I took, "It's [God is] all in their head," and the corresponding tag, "Imaginary friend," to mean that God does not exist, thence making it an argument for belief.

2 points

If you want to argue semantics, then fine. "I choose to have faith." Is that better? From a completely logical standpoint, I recognize that both options are possible. And, for the reasons aforementioned, I believe that God does exist.

If it's free will that you're arguing against, well I argue that that is a different debate entirely. Nonetheless, and at the very least, it is possible to believe in God and not free will. If you would have bothered to study the works of philosophers and theologians past, perhaps you would recognize this.

And in that regard, that God exists does not necessitate that there must be an eternal life, nor that any religion preaching of God must also be right. Even still, millions of individuals who believe in God don't believe in eternal torture. Millions of individuals who do believe in God, in fact, believe that everyone will live again in bliss. And yet millions more do not believe in any sort of afterlife at all.

Now, if you really want to debate whether the mind is anything more than the brain, then I am happy to oblige. For, not unlike the topic at hand, there is similarly no proof that the mind does or does not exist. To rule either way is to defy the scientific method, unless you are privy to some revolutionary scientific breakthrough -- and if so, please share! (I am more than happy to discuss the science behind my reasoning, as I am an engineer by trade. I simply omitted such, partially to avoid diluting my reply, and partially in the hope that such omission might compel others to investigate for themselves.)

Immanuel Kant, arguably the most famous and influential philosopher of recent, said that both God and free will were two things impossible to prove. Ironically, modern science has been unable to transcend this limit Kant conjectured some two-hundred years ago.

Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems you are bringing religious notions to the idea of God. That God would punish non-believers eternally is a religious construct -- and only of western religion, at that. It seems you are the greater offender of introducing subjectivity to this debate.

1 point

To be blunt, you exhibit the same kind of closed-mindedness as the religious folk you mock. While there is no proof of God, a great many religions expect that God would be hidden from us, and have believed this way for centuries before Darwin even redacted the Origin of Species. That you have failed to adequately research so many theologies by no means suffices for your blatant lack of logical support.

There is no scientific evidence to support either conclusion. That alone lends some credibility to the religious community. And that there is no proof for God does not necessarily mean that there is no God. As scientific revelation stands today, the existence of God is entirely plausible.

1 point

I only mean to dispute your first point. That God could create the universe at the snap of His fingers is irrelevant. The question is did He? The answer is most probably not. I, for one, accept the scientific revelation that the universe is 14.7 billion years old, and that every element within me, with the sole exception of hydrogen, came from an expired star.

I should like to point out, however, that it is entirely possible to believe in a universe completely deterministic and yet to believe in a divine Creator. Though poorly articulated, the argument which you disputed indeed has some merit.

1 point

What if God shared your sentiment about religion being so great a misfortune to humanity?

3 points

Thus far, no one has been able to prove or disprove the existence of God. However, we can investigate the consequences of believing either way. But first, let's frame the question slightly differently: Has the universe (or at least the physics of the universe) always existed? Or, does it have a beginning?

To me, as an engineer with a strong background in physics, the concept that the physical capacity for the universe has always existed, is somewhat absurd. That there is no beginning and no ending, as the universe expands and collapses with the collisions of membranes, is every bit as unfathomable as the universe having a beginning. Both options are equally implausible, yet one of them is correct.

We are each free to believe whichever way we want. But to claim that one option is indubitably correct is nonsense. That the truth is veiled cannot be denied, but can it be explained?

Science, most certainly, will continue to dig deeper and deeper, in an attempt to uncover the truth. If indeed the physical capacity for the universe has always existed, then this search will not end. (Ironically, such a search would give souls something to do for all eternity.)

That the truth is veiled, however, is intrinsic to many theologies. For, most theologies would argue, God created the universe for our own benefit -- so that we could understand who we would be in a world ostensibly without God.

Ultimately, the logical case for God is much stronger than often pretended. Though nothing is certain, indeed there is reason enough to believe either way.

I choose to believe that God does exist because -- stretching the realm of logic, if not outright transcending it -- such a belief is philosophically magnificent. It is what motivated Kant to redact and ultimately redefine modern thought, intellectually enabling us to ask the questions we ask today. Otherwise, one might argue, philosophic evolution might well have ended with Hume. Believing in God furthermore subjects oneself to certain moral imperatives beneficial, I believe, to abide by.

1 point

The PS3 runs the Cell processor, which is one of the most advanced processors on the market. Regardless of how well the PS3 is as a gaming platform, scores of computer scientists, engineers, and roboticists have been using the (original) PS3 as an affordable, state-of-the-art computer. The Air Force built one of the world's cheapest and most energy efficient supercomputers out of something like 2,000 PS3s.

4 points

As I see it, you must either believe that someone or something has always existed. Either there has always been this universe/multiverse, or at least the physical capacity for it (even if it continues to expand and collapse); or, you believe that some eternal entity (God) has always existed.

Studying physics, I see no reason to believe that any sort of matter or energy would have always existed, and the answer as to where it came from still remains unanswered.

Studying philosophy, on the other hand, there are a great deal of questions surrounding life, souls and free will. What makes an assortment of atoms or molecules a living thing? Why do we feel alive?

There's a great deal more uncertainty surrounding life than matter. I relate the uncertainty surrounding life with the uncertainty surrounding "the beginning" or "all that is." Therefore, I'm inclined to believe that someone has always been present, not necessarily something.

1 point

To protect the people from themselves. To ensure balance, cooperation and community over inequality, competition and selfishness. Government is an evolved structure to help us overcome our own evolution. It is an institute of progress, and it must continue to evolve.

1 point

With term limits, more average people cannot seriously pursue a career in politics. Four or eight years later, when their job inevitably times out, they'll be "back to reality." Could your average Joe take a four or eight year leave from his work, and return without consequence? No! Perhaps some employers would allow this, but relatively few. The best thing Joe could do for his own, personal future is to secure a job with a large corporation during office, so he has a place to go afterwards. Or, play it safe and simply not run for office -- leave that to the independently wealthy politicians who don't have to worry about this.

If, on the other hand, there weren't term limits, then so long as Joe continues to please his voters, he can continue to have a career in politics. That's a high incentive to do well.

So, when one is about to reach a term limit, what incentive is there for him/her to continue to do what's in the best interest of the voters? None. There is no re-election. Unless independently wealthy, or "in" with a big corporation or two, their best bet is to either secure a job with a corporation, or to make friends with other politicians in order to secure another job in politics.

But in order to keep a career in politics, one must be well networked with other politicians, so that you can move from senator to representative to campaign manager to economic advisor. That means all the honest Joes who try to enter politics and stand their own ground are gone in no more than two terms, either out of politics or in with the politicians.

Conversely, without term limits, the elected official would be on his/her best behavior for however many terms he/she has.

Seriously, what is wrong with a politician continuing to stay in office as long as the people approve of him/her?

1 point

And indeed you brought up some points I definitely needed to clarify. Admittedly, yes, America has one of the best governments around. However, I fear this has made many Americans complacent in many ways. I mistakenly confused you with one of them.

I can't agree more about supporting capitalism by regulating corporate America. There's a balance that few people seem to appreciate.

Furthermore, I agree that our current republic is most likely better than a direct democracy would be. However until initiative, referendum and recall are added on a federal level, it still continues to function more like a republic, and consequently less like a democracy, than it should. This was my original point, however in light of your argument, yes, America is still doing a relatively fine job.

And the only real solution I can imagine is through education, conversation, etc.

1 point

I'm hardly whining about it. But, public discourse of the situation is indeed a viable first step in effecting change.

Indeed, we can read the health care bill. I, for one, have read the actual text of nearly all of the measures I have voted on, the others for which I have relied on what I consider to be trustworthy expert opinions. Moreover, I sincerely advocate that political responsibility necessarily transcends far beyond a single day of voting. Considerable time should be spent first investigating, then discussing the said measures, and finally expressing the thoughtful conclusions to the appropriate representatives, if actions are deemed necessary.

However, in regards to the question at hand, and this particular example, no, I cannot myself vote on the health care bill. I can express my opinion to my representative, although for this particular issue I prefer to leave the expression to the experts themselves. This is the result in part due to my inferior knowledge of the subject matter to these experts, and also due to the fact that my finite amount of free time is more effectively spent on concerns which fall within my area of expertise.

To clarify, I am not saying that either a republic or a democracy is better than the other, for each have their merits. While I resolve that government should be in the best interest of all its members, in fact many constituents simply lack the insight, whether due to reasons mental, educational, temporal, or otherwise, for which the provision of elected representatives is a very suitable solution. Furthermore, I maintain that political systems without proper referendum or reform fall short of the next step in political evolution.

To reiterate these latter points, and that expressed in my original argument, the ruling class should be held responsible by its constituents. When political measures which facilitate corporate abuse of the system come into practical effect after the effector's term is passed, often timely executed by the benefiting corporations and obscured through various other political devices, and with no means to be revoked or reformed by the constituents, the purpose of the political system is stained. This particular aspect, I maintain, is inferior to its counterpart found within monarchies, per conversations I have had and interviews I have read with various Arabs, and per my study of the Enron scandal's effect on California.

In regards to the Republican Party's relative defeat in the most recent election, I do concede you have raised a valid argument. However, I believe the actual benefiters, whether political individuals or corporations, were indeed not held responsible. Those now held responsible are simply associated. Also, consider the confusion around who was responsible for the Enron scandal, particularly as it pertains to California. In a monarchy, at least, one would know who is responsible.

More specifically, Gray Davis was blamed for the energy crisis, and in part for the Enron scandal, when the cause should be attributed to deregulation, an issue of Pete Wilson's platform. Sadly, this simple fact has been obscured. Referendum and reform will allow us to prevent this from happening again, however only if it is properly diagnosed.

And so, I conclude that referendum and reform allows for properly diagnosed shortcomings of any democratic system to be improved. This, one step closer to true democracy, is not present in most of America, and certainly absent at the federal level. However, it is present in California, among other states, as mentioned in another of my arguments within this debate.

Lastly, in an attempt to eradicate any possible debates of semantic nature, I admit that America is in fact a democratic system, as in accordance to your valid argument that our republic is of democratic form, however I do not perceive our current political system as the democracy it is often professed to be. (Though, as a personal aside, I esteem it as an exemplar system in our present context.) Apologies if the conclusions drawn of this inference differ or are less relevant.

1 point

Well, there is a definite sense of good and evil in the Bible, however I doubt quoting scripture will hold much weight here, so rather I will make my petition based on reason. And indeed, as a slight confession, a literal, inerrant belief in the Bible does seem, at times, to promote evil. Isaiah 45:7 is sometimes even translated: "I form the light and create darkness, I create good and evil; I, the LORD, do all these things."

Yet the Christian perspective of God is very different than the Jewish perspective. The Christian God is seen as more merciful, forgiving, and universal. The Devil is seen as the embodiment of evil, although evil itself is sometimes defined as the absence of God.

Jesus' gospel is quite clear. Ignoring what others say about Jesus, but heeding only what Jesus actually says gives a very clear message of what is "good," humility, thirst for justice, peacemaking, etc. ("The Jefferson Bible" is a version of the New Testament that focuses exclusively on Jesus' teachings, without miracles, and without interpretation; a good read.)

The irony of all this is, what Jesus preached has resonated throughout the world. Buddhism, Taoism, at the core, all have preached this same gospel. And few can deny that it is good.


1 of 2 Pages: Next >>

Results Per Page: [12] [24] [48] [96]