The big bang or intelligent design

[ImJessieTR]

And what makes "overriding" chemical reactions work? By releasing the counteragent ... which is still a physical process. I concede it may be difficult to find the First Cause of your mind, but even as a theist I see no problem in seeing a heavily materialistic world.

 

[ルカリオ]

Courage is merely the absence of fear, actually. And fear is easily quelled by killing certain brain cells or drugs.

It's more the conscious suppression of fear rather than an absence of fear.

Going back to the original title of the thread, I've just got my hands on John Barrow's The Origin of the Universe. So far, it's quite an easy read that explains the Big Bang theory well in its opening pages.

 

[Ganondorf]

I've got an even easier read called "I don't have enough faith to be an aitheist" by Norman L. Geisler and Frank Turek it clearly shows all the information that is ommitted or bent by people that rule out the possibility of God before hand.

If you rule out the possiblity of God then you can make what ever theory you like sound like solid truth because of this logic.

1. There is no God

2. Miracles come from God (creation)

3. Miracles are therefore impossible.

With the information provided it stands up to logic but we can not prove point 1 but we have proof of point 2 if point one is true. That will enevitably make point 3 true as well.

I would like to know why is it that scientists struggle and only give the common people as much information as they need to know instead of dumping all the cons and failed experiments.

Tell me what is the chemical composition of hatered for hunting? Show me under a microscope if you can what makes me think that there is a God. Whie you are at it explain why a body that is dead has the same chemicals as one that is alive, what is the chemical composition of life in the brain?

If all we are is chemicals then there must be no moral value because all we are is intelligent animals. Wait! We aren't intelligent because we are just reacting chemicals so we should abolish all our laws because they were just chemical reactions of some one that witnessed a murder or was stolen from.

Hey! We were wrong in going to war against hitler! He just had bad chemicals that caused him to want to kill people, we should be ashamed wait! We don't need to be ashamed because there are no morals.

If you turn us all into reacting chemicals then you have alot more obstactles then you think you do.

*** The above comments were not made to anyone in particular but rather the discussion as a whole

I got a little carried away but you almost made me laugh when you just contradicted yourself now, "It's more the conscious suppression of fear rather than an absence of fear"

If it takes conscious supression to stop fear then it must take concious acknowledgement of the outside antogonist to have fear.

Ex: You won't be afraid of a man standing over you with a knife while you sleep, unless you hear him or see him or identify the threat in another way. You have to be consiously aware to be afraid.

 

[GrnMarvl14]

I would like to know why is it that scientists struggle and only give the common people as much information as they need to know instead of dumping all the cons and failed experiments.

Because your average person doesn't want to know everything that happened. They just want the end experiment. Do a LITTLE digging (not a lot) and you'll find the full methods used to arrive at whatever the end result was. If you're trying to get somewhere, no one wants to know all the steps you took, they just want to know that you arrived. Maybe you had a funny incident on the way and want to tell that. Go ahead. Same thing happens in science, only the "funny incidents" usually lead to other discoveries. And, sometimes, that's the full extent of how something is discovered. It's found while doing something else (there's a story on burning salt water in the science forum lower on the board).

. Whie you are at it explain why a body that is dead has the same chemicals as one that is alive

It doesn't. Not the EXACT same. ROUGHLY the same, because when you die, things don't just magically vanish. But there IS a cellular breakdown after death, hence why we have skeletons in coffins and not the bodies originally buried there.

Tell me what is the chemical composition of hatered for hunting?

That would be an emotion. No chemicals are really involved there (well, if it's an intense hatred, you might have some adrenalin), just electrical signals in the brain.

what is the chemical composition of life in the brain?

All you could ever want regarding the brain.

If all we are is chemicals then there must be no moral value because all we are is intelligent animals. Wait! We aren't intelligent because we are just reacting chemicals so we should abolish all our laws because they were just chemical reactions of some one that witnessed a murder or was stolen from.

Morality is a concept invented by humanity in order to bring order and, eventually, law. Why don't we abolish it? Because we like society. Without morality, there is no society. But, you see, morality isn't a scientific issue. It's a philosophical/historical/anthropological issue, depending on which section of it you're debating. The why is philosophical, the how is historical and, basically, everything else is anthropological.

Hey! We were wrong in going to war against hitler! He just had bad chemicals that caused him to want to kill people, we should be ashamed wait! We don't need to be ashamed because there are no morals.

Actually, recent findings suggest that Hitler WAS mentally disturbed and suffered from at least one sexually-transmitted disease. Plus, there's reason to believe he suffered psychological trauma because of his...less-than-stellar...childhood.

But you seem to assume that morality can only exist with religion. Which is just not true. Atheism isn't a step into a morality-free zone. It's just a movement to have humanity depend on itself to decide its fate, not some book or ages-old deity. There are logical reasons for morality, and thus...it exists.

I got a little carried away but you almost made me laugh when you just contradicted yourself now, "It's more the conscious suppression of fear rather than an absence of fear"

How is that a contradiction? There's a difference between not being afraid and being afraid and not showing fear. Ask anyone who's been in a war zone and not shit their pants.

If it takes conscious supression to stop fear then it must take concious acknowledgement of the outside antogonist to have fear.

Yes, to fight fear, you have to know what you're afraid of so you can get past it. That's basic psychology. If you don't know WHY you're afraid, you can't stop yourself from being afraid. But there's a difference between suppressing fear and not being afraid.

Ex: You won't be afraid of a man standing over you with a knife while you sleep, unless you hear him or see him or identify the threat in another way. You have to be consiously aware to be afraid.

Not necessarily. Plenty of people feel fear without knowing why. Often they can precede a terrific act. Plenty of instances have been recorded of people having an immense level of unexplained fear prior to an earthquake. It's sort of like why animals flee areas about to be devastated. It's not a conscious thing. It's...an unexplainable...sense.

 

[ImJessieTR]

That would be an emotion. No chemicals are really involved there (well, if it's an intense hatred, you might have some adrenalin), just electrical signals in the brain.

That's not entirely accurate. Stop eating sodium and potassium and see how long you last -- your neurons use these chemicals to fire the action potentials.
Know your brain

The hypothalamus (10), about the size of a pearl, directs a multitude of important functions. It wakes you up in the morning, and gets the adrenaline flowing during a test or job interview. The hypothalamus is also an important emotional center, controlling the molecules that make you feel exhilarated, angry, or unhappy. Near the hypothalamus lies the thalamus (11), a major clearinghouse for information going to and from the spinal cord and the cerebrum.

and

Scientists have learned a great deal about neurons by studying the synapse—the place where a signal passes from the neuron to another cell. When the signal reaches the end of the axon it stimulates tiny sacs (17). These sacs release chemicals known as neurotransmitters (18) into the synapse (19). The neurotransmitters cross the synapse and attach to receptors (20) on the neighboring cell. These receptors can change the properties of the receiving cell. If the receiving cell is also a neuron, the signal can continue the transmission to the next cell.

We aren't robots, which use purely electrical signals. Our signals are somewhat more analog -- we use chemicals to provide the charge.
(This isn't directed to you specifically as it's directed to those who seem unclear. The main point is that chemicals drive everything you think and emote. Sorry if that offends anyone.)

Morality is a concept invented by humanity in order to bring order and, eventually, law. Why don't we abolish it? Because we like society. Without morality, there is no society. But, you see, morality isn't a scientific issue. It's a philosophical/historical/anthropological issue, depending on which section of it you're debating. The why is philosophical, the how is historical and, basically, everything else is anthropological.

Quoted for truth. "Morality" is merely an attempt to succeed in life. "Darwinism" isn't just about the genes or the physiology -- it's also about behavior. Tool use by chimps is "hereditary" in the sense that they're parents taught them that trick and so the behavior is passed on. However, if there are physiological issues in the younger chimp's brain, they might not be able to pick up such advanced notions as tool use ... again, the presence or absence of chemicals and other physiological structures determines how adaptable you are to life in general.

How is that a contradiction? There's a difference between not being afraid and being afraid and not showing fear. Ask anyone who's been in a war zone and not shit their pants.

This really isn't in response to you, but the idea this quote stems from: When you "consciously" control your fear, you already have the genetic capacity to do so in the first place. Your brain is in charge of the chemicals released during fear, and can be overridden by the exact same structures. If one could not override a knee-jerk reaction, lots of people would die (like, if you run from an angry dog, you will most definitely be chased and bitten, but if you can counter that initial reaction and adjust it so that instead you whip around and punch him in the face [and maybe bite him too for good measure ], you might just survive. However, your genes gave you this flexibility and adaptability. Although life is indeed more complicated than behaviorism from psychology implies, "stimulus and response" still governs much of our existence, albeit in very complicated ways.
What happens when lack of stimulation disrupts normal brain maturation.
(Please do not accuse me of linking autism to sociopathology ... because personally I don't think that's a fair link; it may be true, but why make a particularly harmless group of people suffer because the Unabomber was an unadulterated psycho.)

 

[Ganondorf]

Hmm... I'm not sure that I agree with you guys.

For one thing if morality is an invented thing then explain in plain english, without quoting a great professor that rambles on about crap, why do all human being have a certain amount of morality in them?

Let's leave religion out for the time being and think.

If anyone is on the receiving end of murder, theft, deceit then they assume it is wrong correct? Well are we saying that it's a chemical reaction if morality is preferance?

And another thing, we do need certain things to survive and fire our brain's physical functions, but our physical functions in the brain are stimulated by not only the outside world but how we interpret it vs. what it really is.

I really am suprised that you can actually think that hitler wanted to wipe out the Jews because of bad chemicals in him? PLEASE think rationally, beyond brain disorders to the very definition of good and evil.

 

[GrnMarvl14]

Hmm... I'm not sure that I agree with you guys.

For one thing if morality is an invented thing then explain in plain english, without quoting a great professor that rambles on about crap, why do all human being have a certain amount of morality in them?

Why do all humans have 2 legs? Why do they all have heads? They just do. If they don't, they likely don't last long, or they end up in prison.

If anyone is on the receiving end of murder, theft, deceit then they assume it is wrong correct? Well are we saying that it's a chemical reaction if morality is preferance?

No, it's a social reaction. Every living creature knows what death is if they've seen it once. All seek to avoid that (basic instinct). By making murder illegal, you're preventing death (at least at the hands of another person, and as much as you can do anything), and thus preventing a very basic thing from befalling people. Death is a very primal fear. And if you develop feelings for someone, you don't want them to die either. So, preventing murder is a mutual way of protection. No society has allowed murder. Sacrifice, yes, but not cold-blooded murder. Society doesn't work when everyone's killing each other.

And another thing, we do need certain things to survive and fire our brain's physical functions, but our physical functions in the brain are stimulated by not only the outside world but how we interpret it vs. what it really is.

Not everything. You don't need an outside force to tell you to breathe, to go to the bathroom, to walk, or even to develop a type of speech (outside force tells you WHAT to speak, not just to speak). The things that are absolutely needed for survival are primal. HOW to hunt isn't, necessarily, keyed in, but to feed is.

I really am suprised that you can actually think that hitler wanted to wipe out the Jews because of bad chemicals in him? PLEASE think rationally, beyond brain disorders to the very definition of good and evil.

...Yes, god forbid I used what scientists and historians are saying using valid data. I'm not justifying what he did, I'm just explaining WHY he did it. Showing that there IS a logical reason.

 

[Ganondorf]

Well first off you haven't fully answered my questions, and now you are saying that Morality is genetic and all people have it, you are also assuming that the instinct to survive is true without proof.

Explain people that:

Smoke
Do Drugs
Commit suicide

Is the basic instinct being overidden by some conscious thought or by more chemicals.

And about hitler, have you thought of the fact that he hated the Jews? Saw them as weak and logically only the fitest survive? In fact I read a quote a while back that hitler had extremely sound logic for wanting to kill the jewish race off and guess what it was founded on Darwinism.

And if it was just a disorder then perhaps we should excuse all criminals because we aren't being fair or is being fair vs. not fair a disorder as well?

 

[GrnMarvl14]

Well first off you haven't fully answered my questions, and now you are saying that Morality is genetic and all people have it, you are also assuming that the instinct to survive is true without proof.

Explain people that:

Smoke
Do Drugs
Commit suicide

Easy. The first two affect brain chemistry, producing stimulants which cause addiction.

The third's more complicated, but often can be traced to chemical imbalance, mental disorders (which can be caused by a chemical imbalance, see depression for the best example), or any number of other minor causes.

What do all three have in common? They're in the MINORITY. MOST people do NONE of them. Hence, survival of the species is assured.

And about hitler, have you thought of the fact that he hated the Jews? Saw them as weak and logically only the fitest survive? In fact I read a quote a while back that hitler had extremely sound logic for wanting to kill the jewish race off and guess what it was founded on Darwinism.

...Source the quote and then I'll respond.

And if it was just a disorder then perhaps we should excuse all criminals because we aren't being fair or is being fair vs. not fair a disorder as well?

That's a very common argument. It's also why prisons aren't meant as just holding cells (not anymore, though that was their original purpose), they're meant as rehabilitation. Whether they actually ARE used for rehabilitation is another matter entirely.

Often, with criminals, you can connect it with a mental disorder, a simple bad choice, or "poor upbringing."

 

[Ganondorf]

Wait rehabilitation is impossible according to what you have established so far unlesss through the use of drugs. Are we pumping drugs into rapists and murders to overide their genetic code at the expense of their free will? Or are we trying to give them a better option?

I'll get the quote for you shortly.

 

[GrnMarvl14]

Wait rehabilitation is impossible according to what you have established so far unlesss through the use of drugs. Are we pumping drugs into rapists and murders to overide their genetic code at the expense of their free will? Or are we trying to give them a better option?

I'll get the quote for you shortly.

When did I EVER say rehabilitation was impossible? People can change. I've never said otherwise.

 

[Ganondorf]

No, no quite the contrary with your argument that genetics make us what we are then there is no other way to change unless we change the genetics.

 

[GrnMarvl14]

No, no quite the contrary with your argument that genetics make us what we are then there is no other way to change unless we change the genetics.

How do you get that? Show me where I said that so I can either correct myself or explain how you got something different from what I said.

 

[Ganondorf]

That's not necessary, all we need to do is go over the rules you have established.

We are the way we are through genetics (Gay, criminal, chocolate haters etc...)

We can be disciplined against our chemical process with other chemicals to alter our way of thinking, otherwise it is set.

I am pretty sure that you have established that, and I'm on a mac right now *groans* i can never remember how to copy/paste.

 

[GrnMarvl14]

That's not necessary, all we need to do is go over the rules you have established.

Yes, because God forbid you use my own words against me when I ask you to.

We are the way we are through genetics (Gay, criminal, chocolate haters etc...)

When did I ever say we were criminal through genetics? To be a criminal takes a lot of different things. You aren't strictly born a criminal. You can be born with a certain mental...issue that leads you down that path, but that's nowhere near the only path.

We can be disciplined against our chemical process with other chemicals to alter our way of thinking, otherwise it is set.

Chemical processes do not equal how we think. It can INFLUENCE how we think, and warp perspectives, but it's not the sole decider.

I am pretty sure that you have established that, and I'm on a mac right now *groans* i can never remember how to copy/paste.

I believe it's ctrl+apple+c/p. But, honestly, it's been too long since I used a Mac.

 

[Ganondorf]

Oh, thanks I'll probably quote you later then *kicks school computer* colleges should have better equipment. But anyways if genetics only influence us then is it possible to go against them and be perfectly happy?

 

[evkl]

I think it's pretty silly to argue that one can be genetically (or otherwise 'born') unhappy...

 

[Ganondorf]

It is... *looks at title* wow we got off track, I think this should be deleted I'm forgetting what we are really arguing about actually.

 

[GrnMarvl14]

I think it's pretty silly to argue that one can be genetically (or otherwise 'born') unhappy...

In fact, I don't think you can be born into ANY emotion or mood. That's usually influenced by the world around you. Barring some genetic abnormality, everyone seems to be born fairly neutral.

 

[evkl]

We typically don't delete topics because they've gone off their title. That's part of debate: it's an evolving discussion.