Are we really that important or are we just arrogant?

[Creeyayshun]

I'm new to this forum and to debating these subjects in general. I do not intend to offend anyone and I am genuinely curious, as an atheist, as to what religious people think of this.

I'm just wondering for those of you who do believe that the everything that exists was created by god, why did he make so much? If humans and life on earth was the only life he created, then why did he make things millions of light years away? They don't effect us at all so in essence they have no meaning other than to look at them.
Please look at this just to get a visual scale of how small we really are:



Now, that stops at stars... just stars. There are billions of stars which make galaxies. There are billions of galaxies that make up our universe which continues to expand. Compared to all of this to say we are merely a spec of dust is an understatement. So basically what I am asking:

1. why do religious people think we are so important and that an entity is watching us and only us (supposedly being the only living things in the universe) all the time with no other life if our universe is this big. It just seems arrogant to me.

2. Why would he make all of those galaxies so far away?

3. If you believe the bible in saying the earth is 6000 years old then how do we see stars millions of light years away (the light wouldn't have reached us yet)

[QED]

Given a choice, I will take predicate dualism. A cop out perhaps, but less fantastical.

But why cling to dualism at all if substance and property dualism seem too strong? If nervous systems evolved to coordinate sensor and motor interactions to a degree that prevented organisms being damaged beyond repair -- before passing on their genetic blueprint -- isn't the piece-by-piece elaboration of this sufficient to account for our acute awareness of the world?

[McCulloch]

You do enjoy changing the subject don't you??? Sly dog!!!

I thought that this was relevant to the topic. You do enjoy excessive punctuation and emoticons, don't you?

Decartes could never clearly explain the major problem to his theory. Namely the problem of interactionism: the idea that mental events can and do lead to physical events and vice versa. When you are scared you have definite physiological changes: increased heart rate, blood pressure, breathing, constriction or dilation of pupils etc... (commonly known as the flight or fight response).

True. I reject dualism. However, dualism of some sort seems to be necessary for Christian eschatology.

In regards to the human body, just as with a whale, we are built with many complex structures. I don't see anything chaotic about our physical makeup. Mental, perhaps. All the structures of our human body are in a constant state of changing, whether you are talking about the CO2/O2 exchange, the NA/K pump exchanges, etc... all to keep a level of equilibrium. What appears chaotic is actually quite orderly.

I meant the word chaotic more in its mathematical sense, A dynamical system that has a sensitive dependence on its initial conditions. or Chaos Theory. While entirely built of deterministic parts, a human as a system is unpredictable. This unpredictability must either be the result of something outside of the human body (dualism) or inherent in the human, such as can be observed in Chaos Theory.

[alexiarose]

Given a choice, I will take predicate dualism. A cop out perhaps, but less fantastical.

But why cling to dualism at all if substance and property dualism seem too strong? If nervous systems evolved to coordinate sensor and motor interactions to a degree that prevented organisms being damaged beyond repair -- before passing on their genetic blueprint -- isn't the piece-by-piece elaboration of this sufficient to account for our acute awareness of the world?

Well Howdy Pardner

My point was that if I was given a choice between the 3, predicate would be my choice. The reason being that at least it doesn't try to put the mental in terms of physical and vice versa. But dualism itself doesn't really answer anything so it is a poor substitute for science.
Nervous systems haven't evolved to the point that coordinated sensory and motor interactions prevent an organism from being damaged beyond repair. Both systems still get damaged beyond repair on a regular basis actually.

Now, is the nervous system really the link to our acute awareness of the world? Our eyes see things upside down until our brain puts them rightside up. It would seem that even the nervous system struggles to make sense of our consciousness.

[alexiarose]

You do enjoy changing the subject don't you??? Sly dog!!!

I thought that this was relevant to the topic. You do enjoy excessive punctuation and emoticons, don't you?

Is there no humor to be found in you?

I know, you need a hug, and guess what? There is a smiley thingy for it. So here it comes

Decartes could never clearly explain the major problem to his theory. Namely the problem of interactionism: the idea that mental events can and do lead to physical events and vice versa. When you are scared you have definite physiological changes: increased heart rate, blood pressure, breathing, constriction or dilation of pupils etc... (commonly known as the flight or fight response).

True. I reject dualism. However, dualism of some sort seems to be necessary for Christian eschatology.

Says who? Gosh, I didn't know there were so many stereotypes out there. Oh well.

In regards to the human body, just as with a whale, we are built with many complex structures. I don't see anything chaotic about our physical makeup. Mental, perhaps. All the structures of our human body are in a constant state of changing, whether you are talking about the CO2/O2 exchange, the NA/K pump exchanges, etc... all to keep a level of equilibrium. What appears chaotic is actually quite orderly.

I meant the word chaotic more in its mathematical sense, A dynamical system that has a sensitive dependence on its initial conditions. or Chaos Theory. While entirely built of deterministic parts, a human as a system is unpredictable. This unpredictability must either be the result of something outside of the human body (dualism) or inherent in the human, such as can be observed in Chaos Theory.

So you are trying to explain the human anatomy and physiology with that of the laws of physics?

[McCulloch]

Is there no humor to be found in you?

It's there, you just have to look hard.

True. I reject dualism. However, dualism of some sort seems to be necessary for Christian eschatology.

Says who? Gosh, I didn't know there were so many stereotypes out there. Oh well.

All those Christians who speak of the soul or the spirit.

So you are trying to explain the human anatomy and physiology with that of the laws of physics?

That would be way too difficult. Ironically, that seems to be the point of Chaos Theory. That being said, everything biological is subject to the laws of physics. Dualism posits that there is something (often called the spirit or soul or something like that) which is beyond the laws of physics.

[alexiarose]

Is there no humor to be found in you?

It's there, you just have to look hard.

Ok, straining to see

True. I reject dualism. However, dualism of some sort seems to be necessary for Christian eschatology.

Says who? Gosh, I didn't know there were so many stereotypes out there. Oh well.

All those Christians who speak of the soul or the spirit.

Of whose spirit? The soul cannot be explained in terms of science. It has no understanding in that dicipline.

So you are trying to explain the human anatomy and physiology with that of the laws of physics?

That would be way too difficult. Ironically, that seems to be the point of Chaos Theory. That being said, everything biological is subject to the laws of physics. Dualism posits that there is something (often called the spirit or soul or something like that) which is beyond the laws of physics.

Since I cannot possibly understand the soul in terms of humans understanding, I cannot tell you if it defies the laws of physics or not.

All biological things are subject to the laws of physics right? Does this include their physiological processes as well, or just the biological entity itself?

Now, smile!!!! Big hugs

Isn't it your generation that coined the phrase "Make love not war ?

[McCulloch]

The soul cannot be explained in terms of science.

Now you are beginning to sound like an atheist. Are you sure that you're a Christian?

All biological things are subject to the laws of physics right? Does this include their physiological processes as well, or just the biological entity itself?

Everything.

Isn't it your generation that coined the phrase "Make love not war ?

No, that was the 1960's. I was only ten when the sixties ended.

My generation had disco and afternoon delight.

[alexiarose]

The soul cannot be explained in terms of science.

Now you are beginning to sound like an atheist. Are you sure that you're a Christian?

Very sure. The fields I am studying are strictly scientific. I beleive that science is our hope for the future. I don't believe science is meant to explain the soul.

All biological things are subject to the laws of physics right? Does this include their physiological processes as well, or just the biological entity itself?

Everything.

Doesn't the bodies constant struggle for equilibrium (homeostasis) violate a system always striving for entropy?

Isn't it your generation that coined the phrase "Make love not war ?

No, that was the 1960's. I was only ten when the sixties ended.

My generation had disco and afternoon delight.

What is afternoon delight?

Did you get to do swingdancing? There is an intramural group that does it at FSU. We have a blast.

[McCulloch]

Very sure. The fields I am studying are strictly scientific. I beleive that science is our hope for the future. I don't believe science is meant to explain the soul.

Why not?

Doesn't the bodies constant struggle for equilibrium (homeostasis) violate a system always striving for entropy?

It would if the human body was a closed system. But since the human body is not a closed system, the second law of thermodynamics does not apply.

What is afternoon delight?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afternoon_Delight_(song)

Did you get to do swingdancing?

No. But we got stoned a lot.

[Assent]

Very sure. The fields I am studying are strictly scientific. I beleive that science is our hope for the future. I don't believe science is meant to explain the soul.

Why not?

That seems obvious. A "soul," considered under virtually every modern definition, does not exist in a physical sense. The definition which does consider a soul to be existant is one that equates it to the mind, which does physically exist. Science examines physical evidence exclusively, therefore it cannot examine a thing that has no such physical existance.

Or the short version: science can't explain the soul, silly!