Identify your scientific means and sell it to me. It is, at least today, an non-falsifiable claim. All I can do is take you at your word that your experience is true. Without being able to present concrete, objective, evidence, your claim is pretty much worthless. Now, if we ever do get that capability to unlock human memory, you can be pretty damned sure that it will be because science has given us a sufficient understanding of how the brain works.
SN may be earnest in his claim, but memory and dreams are fuzzy things. Even if they are real, are they seeing them correctly? How do we know? How can we verify? Science is unable to deal with a fact, an objective truth, the knowledge of which is accurately captured by humans i. Yes, to science my dream is worthless, for it is beyond the bounds of science.
The correct formulation would be. The problem is that your experiences are not objective facts. They are subjective, because they live inside your brain. LoL, I had to look that up!
On Living Without Transcendence: A Homage to Camus
If See Noevo said he dreamt XYZ last week, where XYZ happened to be all six wining numbers on this weeks upcoming lottery…it could still only be considered as a 1 in 45,, guess and not a fact as true as his own existence for the reasons being explained to See Noevo. We all have had dreams and having had a dream is not really a fantastic claim that we will need to prove or disprove you dreamed what you claim you dreamed. The generalisability of findings from memory implantation studies has been questioned due to variability in estimates across studies. The scientific method is the only one that can decide between two conflicting hypotheses.
The first known example to me is Tycho Brahe collecting observations to decide between geocentrism and heliocentrism actually he sought to confirm a compromise. Philosophy lacks that as people who actually have a basic understanding of philosophy have known since Descartes and Hume. The problem is that definitions are descriptive and not prescriptive. This concept is hard to understand for groups of people who think words have magical powers.
- Jack Martin [Cowboy to Cowboy] (Siren Publishing Classic ManLove);
- Amazing Women of the Civil War: Fascinating True Stories of Women Who Made a Difference.
- Judgment Passed by Jerry Oltion - Wastelands : Wastelands.
- OPD 7031 Verdi-Nabucco: Italian-English Libretto (Opera dOro Grand Tier)?
- Review of Scourge of an Agnostic God () — Foreword Reviews?
Theists have an excuse for pulling this statement out of its context…it makes atheists look uninformed. What atheists have no excuse for, however, is making themselves look uniformed by pulling the statement out of its context. It pains me because theists often seize on their carelessness who could blame them?
There is no need to ask who created the Christian deity. It was fabricated in the image of Caesar by corrupt bishops during the fourth century. He is definitely not one to aspire to when it comes to debating tactics. I would say that he has an incredible ability to make horrible analogies, write long rambling responses that are unrelated to the actual comment, misunderstand or misrepresent what others say, and avoid answering questions. These traits are common among Christians, he just excels at them with an impressively clueless abandon.
It is not an invalid question. A simple answer to the question is that God is eternal in nature, and so needs no cause to explain his being. The issue that can be run into here is that of an infinite regress. What was the cause behind the cause for the cause for … the cause for the universe. At some point you either need to settle on something that exists uncaused or try to defend an infinite regress. Most theists propose an uncaused being at the first step ie an uncaused God created the universe , although some eg some gnostics have more steps.
The most common atheist approaches to this seem to be to either propose the universe as the uncaused first cause, or a multiverse. A multiverse on its own is not sufficient explanation though, it just punts the problem out one step, and then we need to work out whether the multiverse can exist uncaused, or what caused it.
While philosophical arguments are given for the the theist stand, the only argument given for Yahweh being the creator is a year old creation myth some Hebrew priests stole from the Babylonians. There, was that a good explanation for you? I can go into further detail if you really want me to. Okay, you want details. Liberal Biblical scholars this one for instance say that Genesis was based in part on Babylonian myths:. Why is an unexplained god any less problematic than unexplained quantum fields or something similar?
No single of these four points applies to quantum fields. In fact, many models propose just that.
- Geology and hydrogeology of carbonate islands (Developments in Sedimentology)?
- Bunte Schmetterlinge in schöner Landschaft: Ein BILDBAND (German Edition)?
- Lone Female.
- The Servant of Jehovah: The Sufferings of the Messiah and the Glory That Should Follow.
- Atheism has a creation myth, too.
- Book: The Scourge of God.
I assume your advanced degree in theoretical physics will come in handy. Do you know offhand how they support their specific deity being this eternal and necessary being Karl? Physics says that there may be uncaused events all over the place. The universe, by the same thinking, may be uncaused. Then the first cause becomes first explanation. Of course. But then we are talking about what happens in our natural reality, not about the nature of scientific theories. Karl Udy seemed to talk about the first one.
That was the cause. When an electron flies out of the nucleus because it decayed, what caused the electron? There is no equivalent; there is no billiard ball A. All we can say is that it was just its time, and we can give the probability for understanding the likelihood or rate of future electrons in the same mass of radioactive material.
“But Who Created God?” an Atheist Fallacy? | Bob Seidensticker
What was the real cause of billiard ball B speeding away though? Ball A hitting it, or the cue hitting ball A which caused it to move? Or the person manipulating the cue? Or the fact that the person had a desire to play billiards that day without said desire, ball B would never have been hit.
The Scourge of God
Things are part of causal chains stretching back to the beginning of time. The argument then is: what was the first cause? Anything else is window dressing in the argument.
There is no chain. The cause of a virtual particle is a quantum field. The cause of radioactive decay is an unstable nucleus.
Camus and the Non-Absolute
The difference is that theists insist that the cause is both intentional and happens at a precise moment in time. Of course, just saying things have a cause gets you nowhere near this claim. But this seems to define two very different kinds of causes. When billiard ball B flies away, the cause ball A hitting it happened right before.
Same for the dent in my fender. I only mentioned that because I ran into a theist that pulled me up on the subject. Some types of nuclei decay at faster rates than others. So some states delay nuclear decay. The only uranium nuclei that have decayed today are ones that have been stable for billions of years. How can that be a cause of the nuclear decay? The cause is instability in the nucleus too many neutrons. The effect, well, that happens at an unspecified future time.
Too few neutrons and the nucleus would decay even more rapidly. The neutrons stabilize the nucleus. One a colloquial one, and the other a specific one. The cause of probabilistic events in physics is the inherent state of the object s subject to it. A radioisotope on one end or an incipient universe on the other. My understanding is that even within the physics community, decay is by the Copenhagen interpretation considered causeless.
I just did a look around and did not find anything that definitively declared radioactive decay violated causality. Also finding that the Copenhagen interpretation is falling somewhat out of favor these days. So, maybe the cat is either dead or not-dead after all. If some unidentified god can exist unexplained so can quantum fields.
When it comes to explanations an infinite chain of cause and effect totally is possible — it may be circular for instance I reject infinite regress, but just for practical reasons. Why must we work out the nature of a multiverse, yet we can just assume things about gods?
This is simply another attempt to smuggle god into existence through an unknown. The argument from motion states that everything that is changing is changed by something else reduced from potentiality to actuality through an essentially ordered causal series which cannot not have a primary or first cause. Since every element in an essentially ordered causal series is a combination of potentiality and actuality the first cause of it all can only be pure actuality. What is it arguing for, if not what created the universe?