₦airaland Forum

UyiIredia:
Gravity and the other fundamental forces (eg electromagnetism) are not material, yet they have observable material effects.

And you know the fundamental forces are not material, how?

This is an unwarranted claim.

undercat:
You can't study consciousness in a lab is what I mean. At least for now. Any person's consciousness is accessible to him alone, and there aren't even words to express much of it to another person.

@bold - Until we are able to, I refuse to contend the matter.

undercat:
A lot of philosophy is based on assumptions. If there were no such leeway what you'd end up with are proofs, which we don't see in abundance in philosophy. Working with assumptions is no barrier to discovery.

@bold - I agree. But if you are an empiricist like I think myself, perhaps, you'd understand.

undercat:
Some philosophers suggest that science is going about the problem of consciousness the wrong way. For example Nagel thinks no form of reduction can ever lead us to understand consciousness. You should read his book "The View From Nowhere" or the much shorter paper "What Is It Like To Be A Bat". I tend to agree with the points he made. I think they are useful to science.

Exactly my point again. You'd only make assumptions that do nothing but lead to contention. However, as you said, these philosophies are no barrier to discovery. So if you wish, you may philosophize. But as I said in my previous post, philosophy at this point leads to conclusion before knowledge.

Until there is knowledge, philosophy should be at minimum.

truthman2012:
To you 'cause and effect' is not science? What is it then?

The same argument proves all other gods, not just Yahweh. It also proves the Invisible Pink Unicorn.

sinequanon:
People who don't pursue philosophy become follow follow people.

People who have lost their understanding of the importance of their philosophy are mentally enslaved.

I neither said "dont pursue philosophy" nor "philosophy is not important".

undercat:
I think the unique nature of consciousness gives philosophy an edge here. It is only the philosophers that have direct access to consciousness. Until science is able to observe consciousness, the best we can do is philosophize about it. Insights about the nature of consciousness can inform science on how to go about forming a theory.

You say "only the philosophers have direct access to consciousness" as if they really do. If they did, they would have provided answers.

@bold - science has been able to observe consciousness, for we are conscious, and we know that; but not its cause. Science has not observed its cause, so all philosophy about its cause is only a waste of time, because we simply do not know. We can only hypothesize at this point. And this is nothing but assumption. So, all your philosophies at this point are based on nothing but assumptions.

It seems you like to philosophize, its ok, you can do that, I do that too. But on cases such as these, I have learned to hold my peace, until there is knowledge of the matter.

herald9:
Unarguably true.
But do you also doubt the existence of a Creator?
That's the reason I can't still come in terms with atheist.
As a deist,I don't believe in the gods invented by man...But I believe in a Creator who doesn't interfere in the activities of it's creation.

One question I can't always answer is why someone will build a house and abandon it. Why Did he build it in the first place when he had no intention of using it...

For this same question, I went from being a deist to an atheist. I just couldn't accept "someone", who is so wise that "he" could create a universe and life, then abandon it for predetermined randomness to control. I don't see wisdom in that, I doubt a creator, who could abandon a universe could create it in the first place.

I found that this predetermined randomness is limited randomness as explained by the theory of evolution, it doesn't need a determiner. It is limited by the laws of nature, which are nothing but laws of connection between matter in the universe. Those laws do not need a giver. The laws do not exist independently of matter. Hence my atheism.

Material effects require material causes.

So a god, which is not material, cannot influence material medium.

striktlymi: Good morning ooman,

Quite hilarious!!! I can see you haven't lost your touch!

Anyways, it is my belief that God created man for a number of reasons and one of those reasons is for man to get to know him. We cannot claim to know God without studying him. When we study God, we need not look at him through a microscope or a test tube...far from it. Our study of God has to do with the study of what he has revealed about himself through sacred scriptures and sacred tradition.

Perhaps another thing you need to understand about science class is that it is not dogmatic. We dont just teach something because a book says its correct. In field science there is watchword "Repeatability is the key to observation" and that means that all miracles will be repeated both in controlled and uncontrolled environment and these include - creation, resurrection, walking on water etc. So in science classes, God will be put under scientific scrutiny. He would be looked through a microscope, his matter compositions tested in test tubes, his omnipresence test through mechanical means among other things. God will not be taught as powerful, Heaven Father, Love, Sovereign etc, rather, he would be taught as a complex complicated lump of matter, the very first evolved consciousness. Test will be performed to confirm all hypothesis about him.

If all these is not possible or if they will not be allowed, then there is no way God is getting into science classes. He should stay in the churches where he can be taught without questions!

striktlymi: Another reason God created us is for us to love and worship him. It will be very silly for an individual to love someone or something he has no clue about. I agree that public worship of God should be done somewhere else apart from the schools but this does not mean that a student cannot worship God privately even in school without disturbing anyone else.

People go to study theology in the University and I see nothing wrong there.

In theology, they study the word of God, they dont study God himself. That is the difference. Science do not care about what God claim he is, we care about what he really is, and studying his matter composition is what that means!

So i conclude that for the sake of respect for God. It is better he stays off our science classes.

Image123: he's saying that some things in the Bible are undeniable historical facts that was common knowledge at a time.

Am talking about Creation

Chrisbenogor: A goat has no business with rocket science. Life surely can be easier, whats the use arguing these things.

A goat has no sense of comprehension.

For understanding, maybe!

Uyi Iredia: I'm ognoring the fine details for the crucial point: you don't believe in God. Therefore you are an atheist.

Well, tell that to the philosophers who separated nontheism from atheism.

Its not my problem what you think.

Uyi Iredia: Which is pretty much the same thing as atheism. Your rigmarole is needless.

we do not claim that there is no God. Atheists claim there is no God.

That one single difference made philosophers create a new name - NONTHEISM- because it means so much. It separates us from atheists.

If nontheism is atheism, why make a new name for it then?

Uyi Iredia: A glaring contradiction. How can one believe that there is no God and yet not claim there isn't God ?

Nontheists simply do not buy the idea of worshiping a God, that doesnt mean there is no God. Take it or leave it.

Uyi Iredia: Then why the needless appellation of yourself as a non-theist when it means the same thing with atheism.

IT DOESNT MEAN THE SAME THING AS ATHEISM PLSSSSSSS!!!!!!

NONTHEISM - BELIEF IN NO GOD [size=15pt]WITHOUT[/size] CLAIMING THERE IS NO GOD

ATHEISM - BELIEF IN NO GOD [size=15pt]BY[/size]CLAIMING THERE IS NO GOD.

UH?

musKeeto: oops my bad..

cool!!

Uyi Iredia: The one about entropy meaning order made me laugh. But ooman stop decieving yourself. You are an atheist. Atheists have tried to give themselves various appelations like 'freethinkers', 'godless', 'agnostic', 'skeptic' etc but none is more to the point than the word atheist.

You are missing it. I care about what made me an atheist than atheism itself. Science is what i claim made me an atheist. I need to be sure i didnt get it wrong. My whole claim here is all about science not atheism and atheists. I dont care about who people believe or not believe, i only care about science and how it can help us. I hope you understand.

get the full book here

[url=http://http://search.4shared.com/q/CCQD/1/books_office/the%20god%20delusion]God Delusion from 4shared[/url]

dr carson is compromised. he doesn't know what he is talking about. he is only speaking for the majority because of money. who will adopt biblical concept to govt. that is the worst govt. ever, a govt that relies on an ancient myth to make decisions

god is nothing, there is no separate entity called called god. everything came from energy, energy cannot be created or destroyed.

ur best option is atheism.

chukkynwob: My only problem with Ooman is he presents halftruths to conviniently suit his arguments.
On a certain thread he even implied that as an electrical electronics engineer that I am @best a tv repairer
So I have taken it upon myself to counter him,anywhere on NL where he presents half truths or pass his personal opinion as scientific facts.

you say I present half truths but they are truths afterall and they are scientific facts, just because you reject them does not change them and your opinions makes no difference to science.

a simple fact is TRUE: there is no God.

ooman is banned. pls unban me.

ooman is banned. pls unban me