Re: Naturalism v. Theism
Originally posted by ushomefree
[b]Which Context Best Explains The Phenomena We Observe?1) Theistic context
2) Naturalistic context [/B]
None of the above.
Humans cannot understand the true nature of reality.
Originally posted by ushomefree
(Self-)conciousness exists.1) God is supremely self-aware/-concious.
2) The universe was produced by mindless, non-concious processes. [/B]
None of the above.
The universe is a complex chaotic system. There is not difference between life and non-life beyond the simple misunderstandings of humans.
Originally posted by ushomefree
Personal beings exist.1) God is a personal Being.
2) The universe was produced by impersonal processes. [/B]
None of the above.
See above.
Originally posted by ushomefree
We believe we make free personal decisions/choices, assuming humans are accountable for their actions.1) God is spirit and a free Being, who can freely choose to act (e.g., to create or not).
2) We have emerged by material, deterministic processes and forces beyond our control. [/B]
# 2 and beyond our understanding.
Originally posted by ushomefree
Secondary qualities (colors, smells, sounds, tastes, textures) exist throughout the world.1) God is joyful, and secondary qualities make the world pleasurable and joyful to His creatures.
2) The universe was produced from colorless, odorless, soundless, tasteless, textureless particles and processes. [/B]
None of the above.
Color, smells, sounds, tastes, textures are subjective human understanding of complex chaotic phenomena beyond our understanding.
Originally posted by ushomefree
We trust our senses and rational faculties as generally reliable in producing true beliefs.1) A God of truth and rationality exists.
2) Because of our impulse to survive and reproduce, our beliefs would only help us survive, but a number of these could be completely false. [/B]
None of the above.
We do not understand the true nature of reality.
Originally posted by ushomefree
Human beings have intrinsic value/dignity and rights.1) God is the supremely valuable Being.
2) Human beings were produced by valueless processes. [/B]
None of the above.
Humans are egotistical and rarely capable of understanding their true place in the universe.
Originally posted by ushomefree
Objective moral values exist.1) God's character is the source of goodness/moral values.
2) The universe was produced by non-moral processes. [/B]
None of the above.
Morality is a human invention that allows us the cooperate and survive. To say a natural process was moral or non-moral is nonsense.
Originally posted by ushomefree
The universe began to exist a finite time ago—without previously existing matter, energy, space or time.1) A powerful, previously-existing God brought the universe into being without any pre-existing material. (Something emerges from something.)
2) The universe came into existence from nothing by nothing—or was, perhaps, self-caused. (Something comes from nothing.) [/B]
None of the above.
Time is an illusion. Space-time is a physical aspect of the universe. It is possible for the universe to have a finite beginning without having a time before.
Originally posted by ushomefree
The universe is finely-tuned for human life (known as "the Goldilocks effect"—the universe is "just right" for life).1) God is a wise, intelligent Designer.
2) All the cosmos constants just happened to be right; given enough time and/or many possible worlds, a finely-tuned world eventually emerged. [/B]
None of the above.
The universe is a complex chaotic system. There is no difference between life and non-life beyond the simple misunderstandings of humans.
Originally posted by ushomefree
First life emerged.1) God is a living, active Being.
2) Life somehow emerged from non-living matter. [/B]
None of the above.
Life has always been.
Originally posted by ushomefree
Beauty exists (e.g., not only in landscapes and sunsets but in "elegant" or "beautiful" scientific theories).1) God is beautiful and capable of creating beautiful things according to His pleasure.
2) Beauty in the natural world is superabundant and in many case superfluous (often not linked to survival). [/B]
None of the above.
Beauty is a subjective human experience.
Originally posted by ushomefree
We (tend) to believe that life has purpose and meaning. For most of us, life is worth living.1) God has created/designed us for certain purposes (to love Him, others, etc.); when we live them out, our lives find meaning/enrichment.
2) There is no cosmic purpose, blueprint, or goal for human existence. [/B]
None of the above.
Causality is the purpose of the universe. We are part of the Karma of the universe.
Originally posted by ushomefree
Real evils—both moral and natural—exist/take place in the world.1) Evil's definition assumes a design plan (how things ought to be, but are not) or standard of goodness (a corruption or absence of goodness), by which we judge something to be evil. God is a good Designer; His existence supplies the crucial moral context to make sense of evil.
2) Atrocities, pain, and suffering just happen. This is just how things are—with no "plan" or standard of goodness to which things ought to conform. [/B]
You have a very narrow view on life I suggest you get out more and read some books.
Re: Re: Naturalism v. Theism
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
None of the above.Humans cannot understand the true nature of reality.
None of the above.
The universe is a complex chaotic system. There is not difference between life and non-life beyond the simple misunderstandings of humans.
None of the above.
See above.
# 2 and beyond our understanding.
None of the above.
Color, smells, sounds, tastes, textures are subjective human understanding of complex chaotic phenomena beyond our understanding.
None of the above.
We do not understand the true nature of reality.
None of the above.
Humans are egotistical and rarely capable of understanding their true place in the universe.
None of the above.
Morality is a human invention that allows us the cooperate and survive. To say a natural process was moral or non-moral is nonsense.
None of the above.
Time is an illusion. Space-time is a physical aspect of the universe. It is possible for the universe to have a finite beginning without having a time before.
None of the above.
The universe is a complex chaotic system. There is no difference between life and non-life beyond the simple misunderstandings of humans.
None of the above.
Life has always been.
None of the above.
Beauty is a subjective human experience.
None of the above.
Causality is the purpose of the universe. We are part of the Karma of the universe.
Good and evil are paths that humans can take. Nothing just happens; cause and effect is why we suffer.
You have a very narrow view on life I suggest you get out more and read some books.
You answer of "None of the above" for everything is pathetic and cop out.
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
I encourage that actually. Give it a try.Explain to us how life suddenly "poofed" into existence from metals and gases.
Explain how your god "poofed" everything.
Honestly, "metals and gasses"? You apparently know very little about the origin of the earth.
I can't offer you fact, only hypothesis on how it could have happened given what we know today. And why should I have to tell you when dozens of scientists are doing the research now? Too many people sit around and wait for people to "tell" them things without actually learning it themselves. Honestly, if I even spent the time to tell you, would you have the ability to critique what I'm saying as wrong or right?
All science can offer you logical responses as opposed to the irrational "god did it" (which, being based off of nothing in its own right is clearly a more incorrect answer). Most people learn in childhood that magic isn't real.
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Thank you. You need not go further.
What are you offering, ignorance?
Neither can you prove that when you step off a cliff, you will fall. Yet, science can give you that answer, but not others. Is that hypocrisay?
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
You answer of "None of the above" for everything is pathetic and cop out.
Why choose between two FALSE false choices (the answers are wrong for the choices which are wrong) when only psychotic sychophants adhere to one or the other?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Naturalism v. Theism
Originally posted by Alliance
What are you offering, ignorance?Or intelligent and discretionary.
Why choose between two FALSE false choices (the answers are wrong for the choices which are wrong) when only psychotic sychophants adhere to one or the other?
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
He posed questions, presented 2 common beleifs regarding them, and left it up to the reader as to which one makes the most sense.
Originally posted by Alliance
I edited and explained that neither choice makes sense. Even if the CHOICES made sense, the answers for each choice don't make sense either. Its nothing but bullshit.
Why are you so adamant and unflinching to call it all bullshit?
Did you read the entire list and give it thought?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Naturalism v. Theism
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
He posed questions, presented 2 common beleifs regarding them, and left it up to the reader as to which one makes the most sense.
They were ignorant and biased.
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
That's a pretty strong assertion, now can you prove it?
If there is no difference between life and death, then life and death has always been.
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Why are you so adamant and unflinching to call it all bullshit?
Because I read it and understand its purpose.
Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
Isn't God a possibility?
Did i say it wasnt?
Maybe a giant orange birthed existance and gives it meaning.
Is god a reasonable possibility? No.