Do YOU believe in God?

[HugATree]

So if you're in love, the reductionist would just say "all that is are some chemicals/horomones sitting around your body, you're not actually "in love"...".

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So what a reductionists definition of love if its not chemicals?

[megakiller32]

well, according to my religion there is a god but i dont belive it :?

[bjbj1991]

well, according to my religion there is a god but i dont belive it :?

 

 

 

Isnt that an oxymoron? Its yours but its not. Or is your case one of those were your parrents are religion x so ALL their kids MUST be religion x. I am fairly happey with my family they understand my lack of faith but they keep blaming themselves for not forcefeeding me it.

[thenext88]

I do

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I can't see how existance can even exist without God.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Oh and Skaten... really shows your age what you just asked...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1. Is there proof? Um, isn't the whole idea of believing on God something that is not supposed to be based on facts?

 

 

 

2. When you pray or wish... stop being a lazy [wagon] and expecting everything to be done for you, because guess what, ITS NOT

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And here's the answer to the question about gravity

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Gravity has not been proved. Scientists don't know why or how it exists. They don't know why it is so weak compared to other forces in the universe (such as the atomic nuclear force that holds the nucleus of an atom together). Supposidly it leaks into other dimension, explaining its weakenss, but again, that's a theory, not a fact.

[Greatsilverwyrm]

We've proved that gravity exists. We've not proved why or how it exists, but we have proved that it exists.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Proof by disproving others isn't proof at all.

[dwarfie76]

We've proved that gravity exists. We've not proved why or how it exists, but we have proved that it exists.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No, we've observed that it exists. At any rate, the whole purpose of my bringing up gravity was to illustrate that "proof" of either side's case is an entirely moot point.

[Greatsilverwyrm]

 

We've proved that gravity exists. We've not proved why or how it exists, but we have proved that it exists.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No, we've observed that it exists. At any rate, the whole purpose of my bringing up gravity was to illustrate that "proof" of either side's case is an entirely moot point.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

We've proved that it exists in the same way that we've proved thought exists.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

We don't need a how to see an is.

[bjbj1991]

[sarcasm]Gravity does not exist! The apple wanted to fool Newton into thinking it exists. Look at people that jump off buildings, didnt they want to hit the ground realy realy hard? I dare everyone here to jump off a building, but it must be the same one, and I will prove to you that the first copple of thousand people wanted to fall and die but the last people wont die. Why wont they die you may ask. The answer is that the people before them saved them from falling to a falce force called gravity![sarcasm\]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If you dont beleave gravity exists goto New York City now and try it out for yourselves. Sanfransicso would also work.

[Toad]

yes and no, no im not religous yes lots of things unexplained why do bodys loose 23g after death but animals dont (souls)? and where do animals come from we know about evolution not where they come from though

[____]

wtf human body losing 23kg after death? I have NEVER heard of that.

 

 

 

If my mate lost weight after death they would've needed to wrap him in a damn fat suit considering it was open casket and he looked exacty the same (weight-wise and build wise) :-?

[jwrm22]

if you believe in a devil, why dont you believe in a god then?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

who maded the earth? can you explain if it wasnt somebody?

[Mercifull]

lol 23kb is about 50lbs. I only weigh about 125!! Thats over a thurd of all of me. thats so rubbish. I demand citation of your source of information.

 

 

 

You also seem to be very ill informed about evolution, smellysocks

[jwrm22]

lol 23kb is about 50lbs. I only weigh about 125!! Thats over a thurd of all of me. thats so rubbish. I demand citation of your source of information.

 

 

 

You also seem to be very ill informed about evolution, smellysocks

 

 

 

if you weight 100 kg... you will have 33 kg water... you could loos mutch water when you die...

[DaN]

 

lol 23kb is about 50lbs. I only weigh about 125!! Thats over a thurd of all of me. thats so rubbish. I demand citation of your source of information.

 

 

 

You also seem to be very ill informed about evolution, smellysocks

 

 

 

if you weight 100 kg... you will have 33 kg water... you could loos mutch water when you die...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

you also lose cloths and flesh. and eventually bone

[Death_By_Pod]

So what about functional neuroimaging, mind-machine interfaces and biochemistry, they just don't exist? Even with our incomplete understanding of Neuroscience there is clear evidence that an actions cause reactions in the brain (which can be detected through imaging software).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Just because it conflicts with your ideology doesnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t invalidate it, this is yet another branch of science that some religious people refuse to admit its existence. Everything has some form of reduction, itÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s a consequence of naturalism (you can observe the same thing independently); or are you trying to say we all have a soul? There is a lot of observation of what love is (itÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s not just neurological, or electrons as you put it), it just doesnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t magically work. The human body is made up of matter from the Earth; where does the soul factor in to it?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Oh yeah, you used the wrong wikipedia link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_reductionism, read that one.

[____]

if you weight 100 kg... you will have 33 kg water... you could loos mutch water when you die...

It would actually be roughly 65L of water.

 

 

 

And most of that wouldn't be lost untill your cells start to break down.

 

 

 

Which is quite the while.

 

 

 

Perhaps a few kg's of weight but that'd be about it really.

[Death_By_Pod]

yes and no, no im not religous yes lots of things unexplained why do bodys loose 23g after death but animals dont (souls)? and where do animals come from we know about evolution not where they come from though

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Actually it's 21gm and from a published paper in 1907, yep 1907. How accurate are beam scales (you have to use metal weights to counter balance a beam) measuring the weight of a living human being? You could change the weight more then 21gm by repetitively bending and straightening your knees. 21gm variation in someone weighing ~70000gm is completely within the range of measurement error.

[____]

[cabbage], g, [bleep] i'm blind. My bad :x

 

 

 

This is what happens when you skim-read folks :lol:

[Guest GhostRanger]

lol 23kb is about 50lbs. I only weigh about 125!! Thats over a thurd of all of me. thats so rubbish. I demand citation of your source of information.

 

 

 

You also seem to be very ill informed about evolution, smellysocks

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Unless he edited his post, he did say 23 grams not kg (I assume you meant kg and not kb). I don't know how much 23 grams is, nor am I agreeing with his statement. Just pointint out the miscommunication.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So what about functional neuroimaging, mind-machine interfaces and biochemistry, they just don't exist? Even with our incomplete understanding of Neuroscience there is clear evidence that an actions cause reactions in the brain (which can be detected through imaging software).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Just because it conflicts with your ideology doesnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t invalidate it, this is yet another branch of science that some religious people refuse to admit its existence. Everything has some form of reduction, itÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s a consequence of naturalism (you can observe the same thing independently); or are you trying to say we all have a soul? There is a lot of observation of what love is (itÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s not just neurological, or electrons as you put it), it just doesnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t magically work. The human body is made up of matter from the Earth; where does the soul factor in to it?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I actually know a fair amount about brain activity and detection of stimulation through SPECT scans and what not - I've written several research papers on it. I'm assuming you're responding to mine and insane's points so allow me to respond.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You can view the activity in a brain when certain things happen. For instance, during prayer and other forms of meditation, SPECT scans will show decrease in hypertension in the temporal lobes of the brain, and if you meditate regularly, decreasing activity in areas associated with Obsessive Compulsive Disorder, anxiety, and depression can easily be seen. Actions = reactions in the brain. You're right that we can detect it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

But one thing we can't detect is my feeling of love for, say my parents. For instance, when I get really angry at my mom - a SPECT scan would reveal high activity showing the stress and anger I'm feeling. Yet inside I still still feel that I love my mom, and no activity in my brain shows that. Can you prove that I don't love my mom when its just a feeling I know I have?

[insane]

The problem with reductionism is that it generally ignores two of the "four causes".

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There's the material cause (the matter used), the formal cause (what it is made to be), the efficient cause (the agent that produces the effect), and the final cause (what it is made for). Reductionism eliminates the formal cause and the final cause even though they are perfectly legitimate. When applied to science this is perfectly fine, since science doesn't need to deal with the aspect of "why" or "for what" something was made - that's not science's positon, because final and formal causality are not physical things. However when you apply reductionism to everyday life, that's when it starts getting fishy.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Take music, for example. If a song derives a certain emotion in me - there is a material cause (the horomones or chemicals), the efficient cause (the music). Reductionism stops here. However, a non-reductionist would say that maybe I happen to LIKE this music, and maybe it stirs a certain emotion in me because I am relating to it, a certain circumstance in my life sympathizes with the creator of the music, etc, and reductionism tries to invalidate that.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Same goes with natural selection, and why I believe it's proof for a cosmic mind, and not reductionism. If you see a rubber balloon becoming a blimp, and then an airplane, you would assume that there was some sort of higher cause behind it rather than the efficient and material causes. So when some pool of slime producing apes and fish, you can look at the efficient and material causes (as science would), but there would have to be a final and formal cause as well, which science ignores, as it should - but it doesn't make it untrue. Natural selection explains the efficient and material causes without a God, but it doesn't explain the formal and final causes without a God. It doesn't explain why.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Reductionism would explain Hamlet by the syllables, whereas non-reductionism (expansionism) would explain the syllables by Hamlet - what makes more sense?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Another problem with reductionism is that it assumes that one knows all of reality. If you were to say "humans are nothing but matter", then you would need to know all of every human, every single aspect. Seeing as the study of human beings is just beginning, I think it is safe to assume that we do not know all of the human being, and can therefore not make universal claims about it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Another practical problem with reductionism is that humans simply do not like being reduced. It's okay for a surgeon to treat your grandmother's brain like a computer during brain surgery, but are you going to treat your grandmother like a computer when you live with her while she's getting better? No, I think she's rather be treated like a whole person, an end.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Some arguments inspired by "A Refutation of Moral Relativism" by Peter Kreeft.

[Death_By_Pod]

 

 

 

I actually know a fair amount about brain activity and detection of stimulation through SPECT scans and what not - I've written several research papers on it. I'm assuming you're responding to mine and insane's points so allow me to respond.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You can view the activity in a brain when certain things happen. For instance, during prayer and other forms of meditation, SPECT scans will show decrease in hypertension in the temporal lobes of the brain, and if you meditate regularly, decreasing activity in areas associated with Obsessive Compulsive Disorder, anxiety, and depression can easily be seen. Actions = reactions in the brain. You're right that we can detect it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

But one thing we can't detect is my feeling of love for, say my parents. For instance, when I get really angry at my mom - a SPECT scan would reveal high activity showing the stress and anger I'm feeling. Yet inside I still still feel that I love my mom, and no activity in my brain shows that. Can you prove that I don't love my mom when its just a feeling I know I have?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Your not differentiating between active and passive actions, you reveal angry activity in your brain because youÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢re actively being angry; of course your anger is going to show up over your love, thatÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s what youÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢re focusing on more. I guess itÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s a bit of a truism; others only pick up on things youÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢re actively trying to reveal (your mother isnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t thinking they sure love me, when she is getting yelled at).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So are you telling me that we can see someone being angry and being calmer when you are focusing calm via meditation yet we can't see love when we overtly act like we are in love; do I really have to start searching for some papers to prove you wrong? What separates love from other abstract feelings like anger and fear?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Your brain permanently forms connections in its brain for things such as visual memory, procedure, thoughts and feelings. Just because you arenÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t actively using these connections doesnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t mean they donÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t exist at all. When IÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢m at an animal cruelty protest/pro-vegetarianism rally do I forget how to make a steak sandwich, can you prove I donÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t know how to make a steak sandwich when deep down I do? Prove what parts of my brain are active when I make a steak sandwich, otherwise I HAVE to conclude itÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s the soul channelling the procedure for a steak sandwich from a divine spirit.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

words

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Let me say that I donÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t purely believe in reductionism, I also believe studying systems and interactions of systems is just effective as reducing them. Studying systems (e.g. studying the types of stars in the universe, or where certain types of fossils are located) is just as scientific as reductionism.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yep, letÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s talk about Aristotles four causes (your placing cause in four categories, which is a reduction in itself). No offence but what are you trying to accomplish with this; the four causes are pretty ambiguous and only the efficient cause has anything to do with the modern meaning of cause. Please explain to me why the four causes are relevant here.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Reductionism is out to try and reduce a system to its components or rules or a simplified system or an explanation, there is no true definition of reductionism other then the basic idea of having a better understanding of a system (Tell me one thing that you understand which has not undergone a simplification of any sort). You can call have reductionism relate to all of the four causes.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In your music example: the material cause would be, the tape is made out of plastic and you are made out of body parts. The formal cause would be; having song x playing while you think about and relate to personal event y is what makes up the z emotion. The efficient cause would be, music causes emotion. The final cause would be, having personal experience makes this emotion z. Ill copy and paste another example from a website on the four causes (the case is a table).

 

 

 

1. The table is made of wood.

 

 

 

2. Having four legs and a flat top makes this a table.

 

 

 

3. A carpenter makes a table.

 

 

 

4. Having a surface suitable for eating or writing makes this a table.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Like the first example, how are these not reductionist? I donÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t see the problem here. I guess it all comes down to semantics, maybe you have very specific feelings for what reductionism is and I have very broad feelings.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The evolution idea is flawed, the fruit of a plant (e.g. banana) is designed but it was obviously designed by nature (the banana was designed by the plant to be attractive as possible for it to have the best chance to spread its seed) not an unnatural designer. WhoÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s to say that a bananaÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s design is nature and the universeÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s design is not nature when they are both the same damn thing (nature). If you want a serious answer to why, try the weak anthropic principle. To put it simply, we exist because we are allowed to exist. Natural selection exists because it is allowed to exist; there no god yet perfectly valid and simple too.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Look, IÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢m not saying we have to interpret everything in reduced form, all IÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢m saying is everything can be reduced (not should). You can reduce ShakespeareÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s work down to syllables but it would be better to talk about it as a system rather then a string of syllables because it is more convenient or too complex to be interpreted as syllables. With another example, we donÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t need to see every single active neuron to make a connection with a feeling or emotion; we treat the brain as a system (or simplify it into areas). It would be silly to dismiss the idea of holism altogether but it would be just as silly to dismiss the idea of reductionism altogether.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

By the way, that was the first time I ever heard the term expansionism. When I tried to look it up, all I got were countries expanding borders; I think the term youÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢re looking for is holism. Holism exists in the scientific community as much as reductionism; I donÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t see your argument.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Some people donÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t mind being reduced, you donÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t represent planet Earth. How about when your grand mother wakes up from a long coma, she might have lost all her long term memory. You canÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t possibly treat your grandmother in the same way as you did before her accident; you have to play by the rules of the brain and attempt to slowly recover her memory. There are times when you do need to treat your loved ones as a number.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And what does this have to do with moral relativism (reductionism can be used to justify any moral position) sounds like someoneÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s trying to self justify their beliefs. My arguments were inspired by dinosaurs (hell yeah!) because they kick [wagon] and keep me motivated.

[insane]

And what does this have to do with moral relativism

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Some of my arguments just came from a book about it :P I was citing my source. but if you're curious, Reductionism can be used to reduce morality to a set of feelings instead of (what I believe is) its objective form.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What about the knowing all of something first argument? If man is nothing but matter, does it make sense that we would have to know man in its entirety to say that? Or if we were to say that God does not exist, we would have to know reality in its entirety?

[Death_By_Pod]

 

And what does this have to do with moral relativism

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Some of my arguments just came from a book about it :P I was citing my source. but if you're curious, Reductionism can be used to reduce morality to a set of feelings instead of (what I believe is) its objective form.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What about the knowing all of something first argument? If man is nothing but matter, does it make sense that we would have to know man in its entirety to say that? Or if we were to say that God does not exist, we would have to know reality in its entirety?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yep and at the other spectrum holism could be used to reduce morality to set of interacting systems. Holism and Reductionism doesn't exclusively justify absolute or non-absolute morals, itÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s just a method of interpreting nature; I can use Holism just as easily as Reductionism to support my personal opinions.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There is a reason why women eat more when they are pregnant, that baby just doesn't make itself. IÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢ve always wondered how non-matter (things like souls) would get created in babies, since there is no fundamental building block for it; do women with children have less soul, would a woman with 5 children have less soul then that of 3 children. You think with all the dead people we dissect that we would have seen something unusual by now, I guess some traditions never die.

[insane]

There is a reason why women eat more when they are pregnant, that baby just doesn't make itself.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

On the Cosby show yesterday Dr. Huxtable told the women that they shouldn't be eating for two :(

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

IÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢ve always wondered how non-matter (things like souls) would get created in babies, since there is no fundamental building block for it;

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Maybe there is, but it wouldn't be visible to your science. Science deals with the natural, so it would make sense that they wouldn't deal with souls.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

do women with children have less soul, would a woman with 5 children have less soul then that of 3 children.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You're assuming the soul is coming biologically, physically, again.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You think with all the dead people we dissect that we would have seen something unusual by now,

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You're assuming the soul is biological, and phyiscal.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I guess some traditions never die.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Maybe because they're correct. You never did answer my quesiton. Is it fair to make a universal claim about something you do not have universal knowledge about?

[Anesthesia]

Is it fair to make a universal claim about something you do not have universal knowledge about?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Isn't that what theists are constantly doing? Whereas the majority of intelligent atheists say "we don't know, but it is most likely/safer to assume there is no god".