|
Welcome to the Piano World Piano Forums Over 3 million posts about pianos, digital pianos, and all types of keyboard instruments. Over 100,000 members from around the world.
Join the World's Largest Community of Piano Lovers
(it's free)
It's Fun to Play the Piano ... Please Pass It On!
|
|
65 members (BWV846, Animisha, benkeys, Anglagard44, brdwyguy, amc252, 16 invisible),
2,282
guests, and
418
robots. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 72
Full Member
|
Full Member
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 72 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 2,336
2000 Post Club Member
|
2000 Post Club Member
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 2,336 |
Originally posted by Mr Zaz: God is for the weak. T-R-O-L-L
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 72
Full Member
|
Full Member
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 72 |
I'm pretty sure what you mean by that, and hey, that's just how I feel. I feel like God is just for people that want a quick explanation for things, and don't want to try to understand science, and how fascinating it can be. That God is just something people have so that they can avoid the reality of life; that life is harsh. If someone dies, they've gone onto a better place. I don't think so, this better place is one without feelings, movement, or anything. That if things aren't going well, God has a reason for it, and it will all be well in the end.
That's just one view I have of not believing in God. I have many more reasons why I don't believe in God.
Oh, and to answer the topic's question, no music isn't proof of God. There are some pretty amazing human beings out there.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 67
Full Member
|
Full Member
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 67 |
so if you don't believe in God, what do you believe?
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 4,555
4000 Post Club Member
|
4000 Post Club Member
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 4,555 |
Originally posted by Beaver: Originally posted by black_coffee: [b]I believe it is as close to clear evidence of God as we have. Ah but you only experience music as something like evidence for God if you are already of the mindset to believe in God; plently of scientists would not hear music in the same way you do. [/b]Plenty of scientists would hear music in EXACTLY the same way you do, with full appreciation for the beauty, inspiration, and creativity, but not see it as proof of God. Plenty of Christians would agree with those scientists. (I use Christians as an example as I know mostly Christians; presumably other religions are capable of appreciating music as well. Also, Christian and scientist are not mutually exclusive.) If you lay out the logic for "music as proof," I think it goes something like this. I can't figure it out. Therefore God must have done it. Therefore God must exist. The same logic is applied in many fields - evolution is an obvious one since someone mentioned it. If I can't understand how it could happen, it doesn't - there's no possibly my lack of understanding could be related to my stupidity, etc. This logic is specious. God can't be proven, nor is there even any decent evidence for anything supernatural. That's why it's called faith. While you can't study the supernatural scientifically (just can't seem to find ghosts when you need data) it is certainly possible to study the physiological and psychological responses to music at deeper and more detailed levels. So far nothing unexplainable in purely natural terms has turned up. Theoretically it could. That wouldn't prove God - failing to find one answer does not mean that another is automatically correct. By the way, to mound's book recommendation let me add one. "Music through the Eyes of Faith." Or something like that, it's been a while since I read it, but it was well worth the read for anyone with an interest in either music or faith. And finally: What the heck is an evolutionist musician? There isn't even such a thing as an evolutionist. There are evolutionary biologists, that's about as close as you could get I think. There are physicists, geologists, astronomers, chemists with some thoughts on the age of the universe that might apply to evolution, but it would be deliberately dishonest to call any of them an evolutionist, whether or not they might be theistic or atheistic outside of their field. Basically the term is a mean spirited insult not worthy of use by Christians, and with no descriptive utility.
gotta go practice
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 23
Full Member
|
OP
Full Member
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 23 |
He got smaller as the world got big, the whiz man never fit him like the whiz kid did...
Ben Folds (legend)
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 782
500 Post Club Member
|
500 Post Club Member
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 782 |
I'm not going to participate in this thread, as my views on the matter were covered to great depth over here: http://www.pianoworld.com/ubb/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?/topic/10/7304.html#000021
"You look hopefully for an idea and then you're humble when you find it and you wish your skills were better. To have even a half-baked touch of creativity is an honor." -- Ernie Stires, composer
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 26,909
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
|
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 26,909 |
BruceD - - - - - Estonia 190
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,393
1000 Post Club Member
|
1000 Post Club Member
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,393 |
Originally posted by black_coffee: I myself am completing a science degree. I understand evolution and have chosen not to believe in this. I also respect those who do, and don't challenge them as being unscientific. We all have the same evidence. It's just how we interpret it.
Evolution is a scientific theory, not some crackpot idea, and it is supported by massive amounts of empirical data. Just as Einstein's General Theory of Relativity is a scientific theory, which is increasingly supported by empirical data. It's not a question of belief. It just is. If you, as a scientist, think there is a better theory than evolution to cogently explain the development of life, then let's hear it. All the "competing theories" I've heard lean very heavily on positing the existence of a higher intelligence that actively participates in the process. Inconveniently for these "theorists," there is no empirical evidence of the existence of a higher intelligence, while there is tons of empirical evidence to support evolution theory. And even if you feel you must insert the Almighty into the creation process (and why not), then why is it so hard to believe that this superior being created this incredibly complex system of evolution -- a true stroke of genius -- a self-promoting and self-correcting improvement project for life on His/Her favorite planet, just sit back in eternity and watch it work. No need to intervene or correct; it's self-correcting! Genius! Surely the product of a higher power!
August Förster 215
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 1,276
1000 Post Club Member
|
1000 Post Club Member
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 1,276 |
There are no atheists in the trenches or at the starting line...
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 426
Full Member
|
Full Member
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 426 |
Originally posted by Mr Zaz: I'm pretty sure what you mean by that, and hey, that's just how I feel. I feel like God is just for people that want a quick explanation for things, and don't want to try to understand science, and how fascinating it can be. That God is just something people have so that they can avoid the reality of life; that life is harsh. If someone dies, they've gone onto a better place. I don't think so, this better place is one without feelings, movement, or anything. That if things aren't going well, God has a reason for it, and it will all be well in the end.
That's just one view I have of not believing in God. I have many more reasons why I don't believe in God.
Oh, and to answer the topic's question, no music isn't proof of God. There are some pretty amazing human beings out there. I think science only shows the necessity of a greater being. Take for instance the big bang theory (I don't know how up you guys are on your big bang). It all makes perfect sense, until you back track to the beginning. The initial explosion or event that triggered the big bang goes totally against all other scientific principles. If all the matter in the universe was together in the beginning, the gravitationl attraction would be too strong. Nothing could break it apart and overcome this force, except some higher power, something beyond scientific explanation. Track back a little further, how did everything get their in the first place to allow the big bang? It can't have just been there forever. There must be some creator, something that preceded all other things. For me as a Christian, I believe its God, not because I'm too lazy to understand the science, but because I think its the only logical answer.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 4,555
4000 Post Club Member
|
4000 Post Club Member
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 4,555 |
Originally posted by Auntie Lynn: There are no atheists in the trenches or at the starting line... Like Pat Tillman, for example? Simply not true. And it would be unworthy if it were true, to think that faith could only be motivated by fear. For shame.
gotta go practice
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 23
Full Member
|
OP
Full Member
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 23 |
Originally posted by AaronSF: Evolution is a scientific theory, not some crackpot idea, and it is supported by massive amounts of empirical data. Just as Einstein's General Theory of Relativity is a scientific theory, which is increasingly supported by empirical data. It's not a question of belief. It just is.
If you, as a scientist, think there is a better theory than evolution to cogently explain the development of life, then let's hear it. All the "competing theories" I've heard lean very heavily on positing the existence of a higher intelligence that actively participates in the process. Inconveniently for these "theorists," there is no empirical evidence of the existence of a higher intelligence, while there is tons of empirical evidence to support evolution theory.
[/QB]How is there no empirical evidence for intelligent design? This is like looking at a plane and claiming that a tornado ripped through a junk yard and assembled it. That it had nothing to do with a creative process? What evidence do you need? For there to be amazing and widely varying creatures of vast complexity? Oops, there are quite a few of these. For everyone to be labelled with a specific computer like, yet more complex information code? Oops, I forgot... DNA. The universal code that exhibits a universal design but with vast differences... One thing I detest is the assertion that there is vast amounts of empirical evidence for evolution and none for creation. The very fact that we are here, are ingeniusly made and are vastly more complicated than anything human creations have come close to is plenty of empirical evidence. We can't even copy the structure of proteins. Make our won helix shaped code. We couldn't copy a kitten. Let alone create our own amazing creations. And unless you find a better theory for the emergence of all of these amazing creatures, they will remain evidence for intelligent design. Evolution is not a better theory. It just falls short. Why are there no universally accepted missing links? Why have there never been any observed positive mutations? Why is similair organ design seen on animals in widely varying ancestral lines? Why can't scientists figure out the origin of the first living creature? What about irreducible complexity?... It goes on and on. The only unscientific thing here is how evolution is purported as fact and most guys have no idea quite how shaky it is... It is a fairy tale. Until there is a better theory, intelligent design will remain the only viable scientific option.
He got smaller as the world got big, the whiz man never fit him like the whiz kid did...
Ben Folds (legend)
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 4,555
4000 Post Club Member
|
4000 Post Club Member
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 4,555 |
Originally posted by black_coffee: Until there is a better theory, intelligent design will remain the only viable scientific option. Intelligent design is not a scientific option at all. There is no body of theory, no mechanisms, no tests, etc. It is religion thinly disguised in order to sneak it into a classroom, and I detest the dishonesty. I would respect any honest creationist who makes the claim that his God, the Baptist God or the Jewish God or whatever version, is the only true Creator. It might be misguided but at least it's honest. ID is not honest and cannot pass any scientific tests. (There have been a few falsifiable predictions proposed. As each failed, it was quietly withdrawn with no revisions to the "theory.") The rest of your post is simply "argument from incredulity." Basically this boils down to "I personally am not able to understand how something complex could evolve, therefore it must not have." This is just plain silly, it doesn't make a case either for or against. You could be right or wrong, but this is not the argument to use. I see the other poster found "evolutionist" in a dictionary. Good. Leave it there. The only time the term is ever used is by a creationist to be deliberately offensive. If you're not a jerk, don't use it. In fact it's a good test for jerkiness. I don't use the term evolutionist (often spelled evilutionist for more effect) when talking about scientists and I don't use the term cretinist when talking about creationists. I know many people do, I guess they don't value not being a jerk.
gotta go practice
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 23
Full Member
|
OP
Full Member
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 23 |
Originally posted by TimR: [QUOTE]Originally posted by black_coffee: [qb] The rest of your post is simply "argument from incredulity." Basically this boils down to "I personally am not able to understand how something complex could evolve, therefore it must not have." This is just plain silly, it doesn't make a case either for or against. You could be right or wrong, but this is not the argument to use.
I see the other poster found "evolutionist" in a dictionary. Good. Leave it there. The only time the term is ever used is by a creationist to be deliberately offensive. If you're not a jerk, don't use it. In fact it's a good test for jerkiness. I don't use the term evolutionist (often spelled evilutionist for more effect) when talking about scientists and I don't use the term cretinist when talking about creationists. I know many people do, I guess they don't value not being a jerk. Are you aware of your own hypocrisy???? What on earth is offensive about the word evolutionist? Someone who believes in evolution???? I could understand it were I to use 'evilutionist' yet I don't. And then you continue to use the word 'creationist' - as though if evolutionist were offensive then creationist isn't. Go figure. What you seem unable to understand is that there is a difference between not understanding evolution and not believing evolution. Your arguments would form a flimsy analogy. For example, according to you, if I cannot understand how the faces in Mount Rushmore could have formed from random erosion - you would say that doesn't mean it didn't happen. Well, you are right. But it didn't actually happen that way, it happened from creative design. We think this, because apart from seeing it happen, we know such an erosion theory would not stand up to scientific rigour. Same with evolution. I understand the theory of evolution. I understand how mutations are supposed to form survival benefits and these benefits are then passed down until we see upwards evolution occuring. Ameobas to ants, protozoa to politicians etc... I simply do not believe this stands up to the evidence. What decent mutations have been observed? None. Mutations are simply copying errors in the DNA that cause diseases and defects. There has never been a positive mutation observed. Go check it out if you don't believe me. I don't want to go through every reason why I believe evolution to be an unscientific and unfeasible fairytale. There are too many, nor is this the time or place. But don't you dare tell me that I don't believe because I don't understand. I don't believe in it because I do understand why such a theory would fall short.
He got smaller as the world got big, the whiz man never fit him like the whiz kid did...
Ben Folds (legend)
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 276
Full Member
|
Full Member
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 276 |
Peter Kreeft, Professor of Philosophy at Boston College, has written some thoughtful books exploring a few of these questions. In his "Heaven: The Heart's Deepest Longing" he writes the following about music: "Perhaps the most mysteriously moving of all earthly hauntings is music - so powerful, the ancients spontaneously ascribed it to gods (the Muses), not to human beings...No one can tell me music is mere aesthetic pleasure, bloom or ornament. It is a lifeline, a prophet, a divine haunting. If there is a Bach, there is a God. All the hauntings seem to come from the same source and point back to it, however diverse the media through which they come. Not only faces, romantic love, pictures, stories, and music,...,the unforgettable power of certain lines of poetry - all these and thousands more are hauntings that seem to say the same thing: There is something bigger than the world out there hiding behind everything in the world, and our chief joy is with it. The world is its mask; we must unmask it." [pp. 110-111]
Go Eagles! (Well, maybe next year.)
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 180
Full Member
|
Full Member
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 180 |
You guys are just bickering. Do you honestly think you are going to convince each other of anything?
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 73
Full Member
|
Full Member
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 73 |
Saying music is religion on this forum is preaching the choir. You would definitely get a different reaction on a car forum.
Music proves some of us where born with the gift to understand it.
Call me an evolutionist and I will certainly not be insulted. In fact, call me an evolutionist musician programmer mathie father husband "dog lover" and it will describe me pretty well. Call me a creationist and it will not insult me, it simply would not be true.
I fail to see that we have not witnessed evolution within a species in our history. That there is such a thing as cross species evolution is a matter of faith (for evolutionists). Also a matter of millions of years, which we have also not witnessed.
How the big bang THEORY proves God exists is silly. A theory I choose not to believe in. How did the great mass get there? Well then, how did God get there? I choose believe time never started and will never stop (like infinity, there will always be another second after this one or before PMI). Matter exists, it never didn't and will never not.
George
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 284
Full Member
|
Full Member
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 284 |
Well Dammit, if there is a God, why doesn't he/she just show himself to us so we don't have to be in doubt our whole lives? What is his purpose of hiding/not revealing himself? I would think this would be one peaceful world if he would just show up once in a while. I don't know, maybe on Leno or Letterman. You know, once a year or so, just to let us know he's here and watching. Crime and the evil doings of man would all but disappear I think. Isn't that what he would want? Does he enjoy watching us kill each other over him? That is kind of perverted if true. I don't believe that music is proof of God. Proof is in the pudding. Seeing is believing. And don't start on me with the whole Jesus thing. They didn't have CNN back then, so don't try to tell me everything you read by a bunch of Jews in a book that a Roman Caeser had published is God's word. ARgggggghhhhh!!!!
That felt good.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,393
1000 Post Club Member
|
1000 Post Club Member
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,393 |
August Förster 215
|
|
|
Forums43
Topics223,403
Posts3,349,419
Members111,636
|
Most Online15,252 Mar 21st, 2010
|
|
|
|
|
|