Send a Message
to Ray puelerico

Comments

181

Joined

May 27, 2013

Ray puelerico Profile

Forums Owned

Recent Posts

Atheism

Our world came from nothing?

This takes a bit of soul searching, so follow me on this one. We as humans all have a desire for meaning. From the moment we are able to ask the question of our existance, we generally ask, "why am i here, and for what. What is my purpose?". This is further confirmed by the fact that when you take meaning away from peoples lives, they often become depressed to the point of death. Though general, all it takes is a quick reflection on lifw to see that we all strive for meaning and purpose. It seema to be an innate desire withing all humans to strive for it. But why? Nature does not give innate desires without fullfillment. Given this idea, we see that it is more likely than not that we have a purpose and meaning that should be fulfilled. But to have real meaning, You need an objective telos. That objective telos can only be given from outside that which is being given the meaning or purpose. But the only mind that could count outside of ourselves by traditional definition is God. This is slightly theological, but no less thought provoking. A larger brain cant give you thatWell actually the fact that there were many messiahs at the time counts against him being a normal man. The idea of the time was that if your messiah died, you went home and found another. But why jesus? He preached a completely different message than all the other messiahs. He preached to give to ceasar what was his, a thought that bothered may jews. Something has to be up there. But well examine that more in a bitI promise to get more into detail after my birthday, its just difficult for me to reply with such a busy schedule. But i have to say, thank you for your responses. You always provide well reasoned posts to mine, and i appreciate the input.  (Jan 4, 2015 | post #1190)

Atheism

Our world came from nothing?

Well, lets take a game of scrabble. When we play scrabble, we have a set of established concepts that allow us to play the game. We have the english language, we have the rules of grammar, we have the pieces with the symbols that represent the information we wish to communicate Based upon the way the English language works, and we have the board which provides the environment to actually play the game. In a similar way, DNA acts Like scrabble. DNA acts like a genetic language. It conveys the information necessary to make us. DNA has a 4 letter alphabet that aranges itself as a code. Although i could go , deeper, we know from our eperience that chance cant give us both random and and specific information. We can get simple order through causes in the world, and we can get complex information through other processes. But to get specific and complex information, one must step bwyond the normal processes to get that. I want to respond more, but space is shortI actually dont even expect humans to have the same moral feelings. In a way, thats actually my point. Suppose aliens came to earth and started eating us. If they are stronger than us, they can succeed. And if they do believe that having us like farm animals is ok, then theyll be cool with it. So how can you argue with the alien about the moral codes of our culture if on his planet, this is not seen as bad? Of course, we could try to convince them to feel for us or something, but note that any shift in moral thought could not be seen as better it worse given relativism. It would just be a moral shift, but no one could say in all correctness that there was moral improvement. One could say that we would be better in terms of better for surviving, but that would presuppose that survival is a morally good thing, nit just advantageous. But we as humans often do agree that some things are so bad, that to say that they are acceptable in any way is bound to provoke rage in some people. So if there is even one thing that can be claimed as wrong no matter what anyone thinks, then one must accept moral objectivity, since that would be a moraly objective claim. But if that is thw case, the that moral law must transend us as humans in all our areas, and be from a higher source.  (Jan 4, 2015 | post #1189)

Atheism

Our world came from nothing?

I look at what it would take for the cause of the universe to work given the models most accepted today. Ill get into that more with your previous post. I would have responded sooner, but tomorrows my b-day, so i cut down on the posting for now lolMost of the predictions for us finding life involve us realizing that the 200 plus factors that are necessary for life as we best understand it have to be within a certain range. Given the probabilities involved, i see it as so improbable that the chance hypothesis is not a reasonable position to hold. Although various attempts have been made to find necessary factors in order to have a universe that has life, we always find that because of that very factor you mentioned about the possibility of different constants, that there is no hypothesis that accounts fully for any set of constants in a necessary way. And then we get into the multiverse hypothesis, which is quite popular. The problem is that it only adds to the problem by creating a situation of more variables to consider. The multiverse itself would have to be balanced carefully as well.  (Jan 4, 2015 | post #1188)

Atheism

Our world came from nothing?

What definition of time are you using? What exactly is time to you? And no, im not desperate for God to exist. A person who is confident in their beliefs need not be desperate for anything. But claims like that can go both ways. Why are you so desperate for him not to exist? lol  (Jan 4, 2015 | post #1183)

Atheism

Our world came from nothing?

Well, i see evidence for God in the beginning of the universe, the balance of constants in the universe, the information in DNA, the moral objectivity we feel, the Desire we have for meaning, the life and resurrection of jesus, and the Experience of his existance personally are evidence enough for me. That they dont convince you might be one thing, but they still count as evidence.  (Jan 4, 2015 | post #1182)

Atheism

Can Atheists Know God Does Not Exist When They Don't Know...

Yeah, and I don't mind evolution on most levels.  (Jan 4, 2015 | post #233)

Atheism

Our world came from nothing?

First, if I'm making something up as you say, then please point out the inaccuracy. Second, a strawman argument is when you make a case that no one is arguing, and then knock it down. Your definition of a strawman argument is not accurate, and that's not what I'm doing.  (Jan 4, 2015 | post #1177)

Atheism

Our world came from nothing?

This is why i enjoy your responses. Very knowledgeable indeed. In what sense is the universe eternal given string models? The models ive seen still indicate that even given string cosmologies, it doesnt avoid the conclusion that there was a beginning. But i could be wrong, so im open to your information. Now, when i look at all the alternatives to the standard model, i see that 2 of the 3 standard string models are subject to the borde- guth- vilenkin theorem, which indicates that any model that is on average expanding will have a finite beginning in the past. Even without the singularity, it doesnt mean that there is no beginning. Time is a very complicated business, but it can be broken down into A and B theory of time. To keep it simple, when i say outside of time, it is only to represent that time is not in existance in the traditional sense, at least our concept of time. time is generally seen as being how we record progression of events. So things like before, after, coincident, and the like are all terms used to record the progression of events temporally. So lets say that there is a cause, any cause would have to be simultaneous with it effect, seeing as there is no before. So time isnt a problem for causation. When i use the term eternal, i should have been more specific with it and said uncaused. Thank you for the correction.  (Jan 4, 2015 | post #1175)

Atheism

Our world came from nothing?

I said, everything that begins to exist has a cause. You and i both agree that one of two options is available. Either the universe has always existed, or god has always existed. So ive shown that given the fact that there is evidence that the universe began to exist that it needs a cause. Both are under the same criteria. Also, quantum physics doesnt help here. The vacuum is often refered to as nothing, but its really not nothing. Its actually a field of energy that fluctuates on occasion and produces quantum particles. Now if you as why is there something rather than nothing, its often asked if the physical world, not as much if God. But if yoy ask why God exists, it could be said that God is the first cause. He is a metaphysically necessary being, and there isnt any contradiction or problem with that reasoning. The same thing would be said of the universe if it could meet the criteria.  (Jan 3, 2015 | post #1172)

Atheism

Our world came from nothing?

Proof is for mathmatics, evidence is for everything else. Thats like saying, "prove to me that your not in the matrix". Well proving even our existance is hard Enough. But as evidence goes, you can see that by using evidence, you can show that something is more probable than not.  (Jan 3, 2015 | post #1171)

Atheism

Our world came from nothing?

Hey poly! must say, any time i've had a conversation with you its been a pleasure. Nice to hear from you again.  (Jan 3, 2015 | post #1170)

Atheism

Our world came from nothing?

I respect you greatly for both your respect and your honesty, thank you. I can agree with this post.  (Jan 3, 2015 | post #1169)

Atheism

Can Atheists Know God Does Not Exist When They Don't Know...

Wow, i find this very interesting. I jut gave you galileo's books and the reasons why he was persecuted, and your saying that i want to rewrite history? Read morw than just a highschool history book and youll see that this is jyst a myth perpetuated by people that dint know better. Its just as bad as when the church has said that darwin rejected darwinism at his deathbed Here is a quote by Philip j. Sampson 'The plot is the war between religion and science, and it is presented to us, not with the facts, but through the adventures of a charismatic individual. Armed only with a telescope and reason, plucky Galileo stood against the might of the Church. He was tortured by the Inquisition, condemned as a heretic, and wasted away in a prison cell; Italian science floundered. The main drawback to this plot is that most of it is untrue.' (Philip J. Sampson, Six Modern Myths, ch 1, p 29-30, Inter-Varsity Press, 2000). If you feel that i am wrong, present to me any scholar who feels that Galileo was "persecuted ". Ill present you with secular sources as i just have. Also , which theories has the church been against? I can think of only evolution as the main one. In fact, until recent years, most scientists were theists of some sort or another, or at least thought that there could be a god of some sort out there.  (Jan 3, 2015 | post #228)

Atheism

Can Atheists Know God Does Not Exist When They Don't Know...

Wow, so you believe that the church suppressed Galileo? Your history is so off I feel as though it is my duty to show you something. Galileo's research was more concerned with sunspots, Venus, and the surface of The moon. He had very little to use to confirm his belief that the earth revolves around the sun. But because the popular thought was Aristotelian, he was opposed not by the church, but by his fellow colleagues! His book circulated freely for many years, and he dedicated his book to pope urban the third, who was his friend! It was only until Galileo wanted to change bible verses around to sound more like his theory that he got in trouble, because that would be in opposition to the council of Trent established in1565 on how to interpret verses. Then he insulted his friend the pope. That's why he was opposed. His first book, called "letters on sunspots" was not the issue, it was his second book, called dialogues concerning the chief world systems that was an issue. In fact, only those scholarly institutions who were heavily Aristotelian opposed him. Please be careful with your history. I don't like inaccuracies.  (Jan 3, 2015 | post #225)

Atheism

Can Atheists Know God Does Not Exist When They Don't Know...

I dont see your point here on humility, and I don't see where you can prove that should God exist, that he ignores dying babies. And I don't expect you to respect a persons beliefs. I'm saying that your claim is too general and that the majority of people are just living their lives the way they think is best. They don't need to be mentally ill. how can you say that the believer is morally bankrupt when you automatically judge all believers as mentally ill off the back. That's called discrimination, and that's wrong, which means that your views are just like those whom you condemn. But enough of that, let's actually be courteous and discuss this topic properly.  (Jan 3, 2015 | post #224)