Alll events must have a cause. It's a kantian synthetic a priori judgment. A synthesis of two concepts: experience and a priori logic.. — 3017amen

Yep. Kant was wrong.

Take an atom of caesium-137. We know that it may decay to barium, with a 50% probability of doing so in the next thirty years. What causes it to decay now? The question has no answer; it makes no sense.

Send electrons through a double slit. Will it go left or right? We know the probability, but we do not know which way it will go until it goes. Further, there is no reason that it goes one way and not the other; no cause for it to go left instead of right.

Cause just does not work in the way Kant and others thought.

There are indeed things I do not understand. That does not imply that there is a god.


Good response. Volitional existence is important. And intuition, a sense of Wonder , Love ,mathematical ability, musical genius ,consciousness , all seems to point towards something beyond logic or metaphysical...

And speaking of metaphysical, when someone says I got married by falling in love with him or her and I can't describe it it just felt right, what is that ineffable feeling?

Does Darwinism account for altruism? — 3017amen

There are numerous examples of altruism in animals, enough for there to be a small industry in finding evolutionary advantages for it.

But here's the thing - suppose that altruism is completely inexplicable in Darwinian terms.

That does not imply that the correct explanation is theistic.

Proposing that it does would be a very lame argument.

all seems to point towards something beyond logic or metaphysical... — 3017amen

Sure. The trouble is, so many folk seem to think they know what that something is.

Which of course is just bullshit.

Edit:

what is that ineffable feeling? — 3017amen

Ah. You too. You see, the thing about the ineffable is... well, one can't say.

"Proposing that it does would be a very lame argument."

Using it as a basis of one's leap of faith, is that a lame argument?

Which of course is just bullshit.

Is theoretical physics bulshit?

Unless it happens to be God of course, then we can finally be certian. Or so many these stories would seem to have it.

One must ask why God amounts to any improvement here.

what is that ineffable feeling? — 3017amen

That would not be an argument; that would be a leap of faith.

You are welcome to make such leaps as you see fit. You come into a public forum, we might amazed at your dexterity, or amused by your inelegance.

Kant was wrong.ears . The question has no answer; it makes no sense.reply="Banno;341394"]

Are you admitting then that there's mystery in the world?

Is theoretical physics bulshit? — 3017amen

So there is a proof of a christian god in theoretical physics?

You are welcome to make such leaps as you see fit. You come into a public forum, we might amazed at your dexterity, or amused by your inelegance.

Are you getting frustrated because your struggling with adequate answers?

Unless it happens to be God of course, then we can finally be certain. Or so many these stories would seem to have it. — TheWillowOfDarkness

There's a gramatical issue here. Certainty is a species of belief, not of truth.

So there is a proof of a christian god in theoretical physics?

No. Does theoretical physics confer survival value in the jungle?

Are you getting frustrated because your struggling with adequate answers? — 3017amen

Not at all. The only frustration I feel here is that you have not put together anything like the coherent defence of theism I would have liked to see.

No. What does theoretical physics confer survival value in the jungle? — 3017amen

OK, suppose that it doesn't. What next?

I asked you this earlier when you used the example of mathematics. I didn't note an answer.

My bad for unclear language, I meant that we would finally have a descriptive account (God) for what/how something was.

The only frustration I feel here is that you have not put together anything like the coherent defence of theism I would have liked to see.

I'm not defending theism, I'm critiquing your atheism and it seems to be working no?

:smile:

I somehow think that if god appeared before us, suddenly we would have vast numbers of theists saying "That's not god..."

OK, suppose that it doesn't. What next?

I asked you this earlier when you used the example of mathematics. I didn't note an answer.

That's a good answer. That would suggest a mystery no?

The only frustration I feel here is that you have not put together anything like the coherent defence of theism I would have liked to see. — 3017amen

Highlight the text you wish to quote, and a pop-up will appear saying "quote". Click it to have the highlighted text appear, correctly formatted, in your post as a quote.

Highlight the text you wish to quote, and a pop-up will appear saying "quote". Click it to have the highlighted text appear, correctly formatted, in your post as a quot — Banno

Thank you kindly

That's a good answer. That would suggest a mystery no? — 3017amen

OK. I've already agreed that there are mysteries. And pointed out that there is no need to conclude from that the Christian god is real.

So, where next?

:up:

I've already agreed that there are mysteries. And pointed out that there is no need to conclude from that the Christian god is real.

So, where next? — Banno

"No need". Don't take this the wrong way, but explain to me what needs are, and why do they exist?

For example, human needs would be something different than animal instinct correct?

And to answer your question, I've already stated it earlier that volitional existence is important to humans. We choose based on our goals. Why do humans have goals?

...volitional existence... — 3017amen

I've no clear idea of what this might be.

I've no clear idea of what this might be. — Banno

Choice

...explain to me what needs are, and why do they exist? — 3017amen

Why? YOu are a competend user of English; you know what "needs" are. AS for why they exist... again, what could it mean to ask such a question, to ponder a need for needs.

Why not just say that we have needs, and that there need be no reason for that?

SO you are saying that choice is important. Sure.

Now what?

Why not just say that we have needs, and that there need be no reason for that? — Banno

Because that doesn't explain why we have them.

I thought Atheism was an alternative to Theism in the quest for those existential answers no?

the probability of a Deity is much more tenable than no-thing, nihilism or: Atheism. — 3017amen

I guess I would have liked to see some sort of Bayesian analysis, wherein the probability of god being a believable theory becomes higher after one considers, say, mathematics.

I suspect this is the sort of thing you would like to argue,

The trouble is, you havn't quite gotten there.

There are umpteen repetitive redundancies occurring over and over in this thread causing severe deja vu.