Until the part I bolded, you sounded fairly convincing, but laws aren't defined as such. Laws of physics even less so. There is no comprehensible reason anyone on this earth can give me to believe that the so called 'laws' of physics are the creation of a conscious mind. As I stated before, I consider religion a crutch. Something people hold onto when they just can't accept the truth that we are all here for the simple sakes of chance and chaos. They believe that they must define their own worth with some form of spiritual alfterlife reward instead of taking life itself as their justification for existance.I'm assuming that everyone would accept the notion that existance must have come from something. If you don't, that's entirely different debate. If you accept what I'm assuming you do, then you must accept that existance must have a cause. The question then becomes "what is to say this cause must be your God?" My answer is that our existance is governed by a certain set of physical laws. Laws are the sort of things that have an ethereal but definite existence which can only be created by a being with a conscious intellect. Planets can be born by a magnicient and miraculous interraction of cosmic gases. However the laws lying beneath this process, which allow it to occur in the first place, have no comparable means of origin. Laws can only be instituted by a conscious creator. That is how I'd explain God if I had five minutes to do it. Please grill me, I know I rushed that but I'm spending way too much time typing this post.
God real or not?
#4026
Guest_Guitarbizarre
-
- Guest
Posted 07 March 2007 - 09:48 PM
#4027
Guest_daisuke22
-
- Guest
Posted 07 March 2007 - 09:48 PM
Mmm, Seriously if you're religious, you're going to say Definitely.If your #%@%@#% and you believe in such scientific things as in the big bang, Then your going to say, No!/Yes!/Maybe! Me-i would say Yah
#4028
-
- Dragon's Sentinel
-
- 637 posts
Old Man Internet
Posted 07 March 2007 - 09:52 PM
Couldn't be said better, I've been saying that for years.Religion is as much of a vice as heroin is, it's to help fill a void in your being, that's all. Well, that and the fact that it's a hell of a way to make money and have people listen to every word you say.Religion is regarded by the masses as true, the wise as false, and by rulers as useful.I'm as Atheist as the day is long. I see no reasoning behind the irrational belief in divinity. I do however see many flaws with its reasoning, many fools who believe it, and many intelligent people who don't.I see no reason to believe, and I see plenty of evidence to disprove all but the basic tenets of most religions. Since most religions basic tenets are simply common courtesy at large, I believe religion is just a crutch at best and a sham at worst.Until the part I bolded, you sounded fairly convincing, but laws aren't defined as such. Laws of physics even less so. There is no comprehensible reason anyone on this earth can give me to believe that the so called 'laws' of physics are the creation of a conscious mind. As I stated before, I consider religion a crutch. Something people hold onto when they just can't accept the truth that we are all here for the simple sakes of chance and chaos. They believe that they must define their own worth with some form of spiritual alfterlife reward instead of taking life itself as their justification for existance.
I love how you put "believe in such scientific things"...when has the Bible ever done such "things" like curing diesases or traveling into outer space? You sound like an Amish from 1912.Wow, touchy topic, good thing most of the forum is young aged
A state of war only serves as an excuse for domestic tyranny. -Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
#4029
Guest_amateursuperhero
-
- Guest
Posted 07 March 2007 - 10:20 PM
Sure they are. Parking laws, for instance, could not come into existence naturally. This goes for every law created by man. There is nothing tangible that makes up laws, they are an intellectual creation. It is only natural to apply this logic to the laws of physics. Where do laws come from if not from a conscious mind?Until the part I bolded, you sounded fairly convincing, but laws aren't defined as such. Laws of physics even less so. There is no comprehensible reason anyone on this earth can give me to believe that the so called 'laws' of physics are the creation of a conscious mind.
#4030
Guest_Guitarbizarre
-
- Guest
Posted 07 March 2007 - 10:27 PM
The point is that a law can be broken. The 'laws' of physics are immutable. We don't understand them fully so we can be fooled into thinking they can be broken, but the so called laws of physics CANNOT be broken. They aren't laws, thats merely a name they're given because we don't have a word for it that I know of.Sure they are. Parking laws, for instance, could not come into existence naturally. This goes for every law created by man. There is nothing tangible that makes up laws, they are an intellectual creation. It is only natural to apply this logic to the laws of physics. Where do laws come from if not from a conscious mind?
#4031
Guest_amateursuperhero
-
- Guest
Posted 07 March 2007 - 10:48 PM
Whether or not they can be broken is the topic of an entirely different debate. But they most definitely are laws. There is no where in the universe where the first law of thermodynamics exists in tangible form. A condition of laws is not that they can be broken. A law that couldn't be broken would simply be a "perfect law," and this only further advances my point that "perfect being" must have instituted it.The point is that a law can be broken. The 'laws' of physics are immutable. We don't understand them fully so we can be fooled into thinking they can be broken, but the so called laws of physics CANNOT be broken. They aren't laws, thats merely a name they're given because we don't have a word for it that I know of.
#4032
-
- Dragon's Sentinel
-
- 11,507 posts
Mr. Wonderland
Posted 07 March 2007 - 10:59 PM
PSN: Verbalinter39
~I$h
#4033
Guest_Master_SL
-
- Guest
Posted 07 March 2007 - 11:34 PM
That is something that is very unwise to say. For one it leads to flames and second, despite what you say the two are NOT of the same type.A fictitious creature is much more easily disproved than that of a God. For one, though there are stills everal unknown specidies upon the world, there is still the point where they are all discovered. Whether or not this occurs soon or late in sometime in the next millenia shall be ignored for now. A god on the other hand actually has no chance of being proven or disproven which is why it shold be a topic that is not touched. Simply because there is not enough evidence, scientific wise to prove or disprove the God. Yes many can argue that we cam from a sup of molecules that smashed into each other randomly to form self replicating proteins and RNA. however, the chance of this is very very very low. So low in fact that it is considered an impossibility and many of the calculations can easily be found on the internet or EBSCO.Anyone with a full-fledged belief in God, is in the same boat as those who believe in other fictional beings.
Ugh. *slaps his face* I dislike that statement extrmely since for one that is NOT true in all cases ESPECIALLY this one. For example, when people believed the earth was flat people utterly believed so since they could not comprehend the idea of a world being circular and at the time were incapable of proving it were circular. The problem in this case is NOT that someone can prove god's existancxe but rather, that it is impossible to disprove it at the same time. Lack of evidence as well as an impossibility to obtain such evidence makes this a case where responsibility falls upon neither side.The onus is on them to prove it, not for us to disprove it.
Indeed and I wish you would also point out the many holes of the concept as to why this actually may prove to be the opposite. Since though it IS harmful and can result in great bloodshed, it is also an excellent emthod of bringing people together and unifying them for some objective or another. Eh in anycase, same could be said for many things since there neve is such a thing as the perfect theory or law.Again, to believe in something that cannot be proven is to render oneself credulous, and ultimately harmful to society (again, read Clifford to get the jyst of this concept...it is certainly too long to add onto this all ready long post).
Eh, most people are 12-15 and ahven't had access to the information so you really can't be too harsh upon them. Also, it seems somewhat odd that your vocabulary and tone of voice appear to change from your meg post and from this last statement. it's odd.Please, continue this debate. I'm certain there will be many more hackneyed claims to follow.
Nope.There are longer you know that.PS: Think I'll ever set the record for longest post?
BTW I stole your signature for another site.*nods*Inn anycase people wish to argue simply because they want to know the truth, something that will forever elude us.man you guys must really love to argue about god personally we all know that someone or something exists must have created the universe scientists most likely will never be able to prove it but believe in god at least until someone can really give me a real logic explanation on how he doesn't which is impossible for now
#4034
Guest_Zennalathas
-
- Guest
Posted 07 March 2007 - 11:34 PM
I believe I've all ready covered this, but, admittedly, I never thought that a believer would actually make it through my last post. If you postulate that God is something other than a being of total omnipotence, omniscience, love, and good, then you've gone and assigned the name "God" to the wrong thing. God has to be a BEING worthy of worship, who listens to prayers, answers them, and performs miracles. If God were not this being, which certainly does not exist, then what is it exactly religious believers have been worhsipping all this time? An event, or a dimension? If indeed you are suggesting that God is simply another dimension, and I sincerely hope you aren't because that would be a tragic fallacy, then what of prayer? What of worship, mass, organized religion? You've committed a typical theological mistake, in that you've attributed the name of God to something that does not fit the God Hypothesis. In doing so, you haven't proven the existance of a god, you've postulated the existance of some other idea, and attributed it with the name of God.More over, in what way does this string theory support the idea that God is indeed a dimension? It would suggest that this dimension has a consciousness, which signals us to know that it is not simple, and therefore it would need a creator. A more creative explanation for your God postulation would be that God exists within this alternate dimension. Else, the infinite cycle I explained in my last post would discredit your hypothesis. Now, even if God exists just within your little dimension, that calls into question that being's identity as God. If this dimension has always existed, then did God create it and then choose to reside in it? Or was God created from within in it? Of course, you could never admit to God being created, that immediately falsifying the claim as the intelligent designer, so then you would have to choose the former. The former suggests however, that God exists outside that continuity anyway, and would not require that dimension. So, his existance in or as that dimension would both not facilitate a sufficient explanation of God's existance.In accordance to your point on meaning in life: what difference does it make in the end? Does life require a meaning outside of itself? Is existing not enough? Must there be a purpose behind it? Why must there be one? Are humans so goal driven that we cannot imagine a situation in which there is no reward after a long, arduous, ordeal? Darwin has covered this. You should his work, as he's far more influential that you've given him credit for. Our "purpose" is to pass on our genes. It's simply that simple. Everything we do is ultimately related to that goal. Anything we do that does not enhance our ability to do so, will be evolved out of our existance. So, in what way is creating a biological legacy not enough for you? Is creating life with a partner simply not as glorious as heaven and hell? That arguement is simply absurd. You cannot postualte God's existance based on your own greedy needs. Again, you've committed a fallacious, theological error.I'd really hate the idea of existance simply being random chance and that us and our existance are just a pointless spec of life that evolved from a one in a billion chance. Because the human race simply will not last forever, and evertything we build will eventually dissappear, if there is no higher entity that created us and thus no higher meaning for us, then ultimately everything comes to nought and there would be absolutely no point to doing anything what-so-ever.For those who simply refuse the idea of God or have trouble in understanding God's existance or beggining then think of it this way. There have been a number of scientific theories, most notably string theory, that hypothesise on higher dimensions then our regular 3 or 4, up to 26 in fact. God could be thought of as another higher dimension, that which is infinite. If you simply cant accept spiritual faith that God always was and always will be, then you can think of God as the embodiment of an infinite, higher dimension which in some way relates to and affects the lower dimensions, affecting space, time and everything. In string theory it is hypothesised that there are parrallel universes existing as tiny membranes of vibrating strings. The dimension of God would have to go beyond conventional space & time in such a way that it would exist prior to the Big Bang, and if one imagines the area that all the parallel universes of string theory exist in then this could be likened to the existance of higher dimension God prior to the creation of the universe.If you can wrap your head around that then my esteemed congratulations and I hope this brings a new understanding of God's existance.
I fail to see your point in you little "rant and rave". Are you suggesting that your beliefs are in some way more justified than monotheism, or atheism? In every manner of consideration, monotheism and paganism really hold the same probability of correctness. Just because the ancients moved away from paganism, doesn't mean that the human race became in some way more wise or learned. It just meant someone more convincing came along, and we started killing in someone else's name. So...while we mave have not made a "really solid point" in the last 300 pages, you haven't done anything to change that thread.I'm contributing enough, I feel. It is also not my place to disprove God, but simply to point out the flaws in the arguements for his existance. Again, the onus is on believers to prove the existance of God, not athiest's.hmm, 300 pages in and no one has yet to make a really solid point, mostly you're just shooting each others idea down... Personally i'm pagan, if anyone wants to take a shot at the gods of old, feel free. Artemis is my patron, even though she is mostly followed by females. I have remained chaste, as she expects her followers to do. I also call on Athena to offer me guidence when I face a problem that I cannot handle. Even though I don't name christianity as my religion, I am very tolerant of other religions. I have a close group of friends, one a southern babtist, another an athiest, and the third a jack of all trades, studying everythign from egyptian to modern day catholocism. My rant and rave is now complete...-jason
#4035
Guest_Master_SL
-
- Guest
Posted 07 March 2007 - 11:40 PM
Gods don't necessarily ahve to perform miracles or be perfect. The sumerian Gods were considered quite cruel and malicious, beings who were neither perfect nor desiring to perform miracles. A definition of a God is simply a being who is greater than a human, an immortal. I cannot see why you ignore this. The hypothesis of God is just that, a hypothesis and there are many others that go into the same amount of detail with the whole omniscient idea.Note: I only address parts that seem unclear or seem to require attention. In other words, as I do agree with the majority of what you say, I find that sometimes you tend to be flawed and lacking in details on minor parts that tend to hold up that argument.*shrugs* Again I most likely am wrong.And here we go again...I believe I've all ready covered this, but, admittedly, I never thought that a believer would actually make it through my last post. If you postulate that God is something other than a being of total omnipotence, omniscience, love, and good, then you've gone and assigned the name "God" to the wrong thing. God has to be a BEING worthy of worship, who listens to prayers, answers them, and performs miracles. If God were not this being, which certainly does not exist, then what is it exactly religious believers have been worhsipping all this time?
#4036
Guest_Zennalathas
-
- Guest
Posted 08 March 2007 - 12:11 AM
I'm sure you are familiar with the Flying Spaghetti Monster. If not, look it up. In what way can you postulate that this being is any less probable than God? Keep in mind, mass belief is simply not a mode through which you can claim legitimacy. As you've stated, the majority of people believed in a flat earth in olden times. That was untrue. Mass belief is NOT an acceptable defense. If you're going to suggest that the FLying Spaghetti Monster is one of those unfound species, let me save you the trouble and assure you that that holy book also claims that this being is beyond our understanding. This all follows the same function as any other fiction beast or character. We cannot prove that it does exist, but we can express just how infintesimally improbable that being's existance is.Now, you've said that the evidence whether or not God exists will never surface. Well, I beg to differ. Science and technology grow by such large leaps and bounds every year, that it is highly improbable that all the gaps in scientific knowledge will remain empty. When all these gaps are filled, where will believers hide their God? Darwin has all ready proven that intelligent design is a fallacy, and Einstein that instantanious travel is impossibly imporbable. It was once claimed that no one would be able to directly examine the sun. Galileo did it. Do not make too many claims that science cannot achieve something. It is simply a matter of time, and even if we do not know now, that does not give believers the right to claim existance in the meantime.Now, the Big Bang theory has not been thrown out as an 'impossibility'. It was always considered to be improbable. But the degree to which it is probable in relation to other theories allows us to put backing behind it. There has been evidence brought forward to support it, and help disprove the competing, creationsit theory. It is a fact that the universe is expanding, and scientists, through math, have pointed out that it is all escaping from the same point. This may not seem like a monolithic discovery, but the fact that everything in the universe is travelling away from a single point in the same universe goes miles to discredit the creationist theory. The holy texts describe creation as the creation of Earth and the Sun as singular events, not something that happenned at some point between one solar system and the next. So, even if the universe's creation through scientific theory is improbable, it is still much more probable, as it has scientific evidence in its defense, than a creationist theory.That is something that is very unwise to say. For one it leads to flames and second, despite what you say the two are NOT of the same type.A fictitious creature is much more easily disproved than that of a God. For one, though there are stills everal unknown specidies upon the world, there is still the point where they are all discovered. Whether or not this occurs soon or late in sometime in the next millenia shall be ignored for now. A god on the other hand actually has no chance of being proven or disproven which is why it shold be a topic that is not touched. Simply because there is not enough evidence, scientific wise to prove or disprove the God. Yes many can argue that we cam from a sup of molecules that smashed into each other randomly to form self replicating proteins and RNA. however, the chance of this is very very very low. So low in fact that it is considered an impossibility and many of the calculations can easily be found on the internet or EBSCO.
Responsibility immediately fell to the believers of a flat earth once there was a theory to challenge it. There is a theory that challenges God's existance, and thus the onus falls back to the believers. I would also like to point out that you've included in your analogy a horrid cruelty to your own claim. You've compared believers in God to those who believed in a flat earth. Are you suggesting that God believers are ultimately doomed to be wrong?Ugh. *slaps his face* I dislike that statement extrmely since for one that is NOT true in all cases ESPECIALLY this one. For example, when people believed the earth was flat people utterly believed so since they could not comprehend the idea of a world being circular and at the time were incapable of proving it were circular. The problem in this case is NOT that someone can prove god's existancxe but rather, that it is impossible to disprove it at the same time. Lack of evidence as well as an impossibility to obtain such evidence makes this a case where responsibility falls upon neither side.
I believe I refferred you to Clifford's work in this case, which does not single out religion in this sense, but anything that bases itself upon a lack of evidence. The main point behind his work is that, as a human and therefore a morally autonomous agent, we should not go ahead and believe in anything without sufficient evidence and research. To do so would mean you are a credulous being, vulnerable to other ideas without basis. This gullibility would be passed on throughout the generations, as, assuredly, one would pass their ideas and beliefs unto their children, and children's children. Therefore, this belief in ideas without basis, would spawn a credulous society that credits fiction before truth.Again, read his work to get a proper jyst of the concept. I dare not try to explain in it a fully, rhetorically based explanation, for I'd be here all day, when the essay that has done all that work is all ready out there.Indeed and I wish you would also point out the many holes of the concept as to why this actually may prove to be the opposite. Since though it IS harmful and can result in great bloodshed, it is also an excellent emthod of bringing people together and unifying them for some objective or another. Eh in anycase, same could be said for many things since there neve is such a thing as the perfect theory or law.
A) I don't see where my tone, nor my vocabulary honestly changed. Nor do I see the statement as uncharacteristic in light of its prior post. B) THe fact that those who do not have access to the information that would pertain to this arguement are trying to involve themselves, really is counter-productive. If they've nothing to add that is of value, why are they adding it? Especially if they cede to they fact they do now have an understanding of the material on which they are commenting. To them, I should be the most harsh, in hopes to rid this thread of frivilous posts.Eh, most people are 12-15 and ahven't had access to the information so you really can't be too harsh upon them. Also, it seems somewhat odd that your vocabulary and tone of voice appear to change from your meg post and from this last statement. it's odd.
It is because God's existance is so steeped in belief that we must deal with the most commonly attributed terms of that being. Of course, I can also argue that the majority of faith is devoted to this concept of God, rather than faith in gods who are cruel and imperfect. The name of "God" has been attributed to this perfect, omnipotent, omniscient being, and therefore to simply change the definition of this word is a flawed solution. You cannot change the majority of believers faith by privately changing the word's meaning. You would have to irradicate the holy books, and then push your theory. In a sense, you would have gone an abolished religion and the world's sense of a God. While I would whole-heartedly accept this, I would warn that worshipping something less than perfect would be an incredible mistake. Half the definition of a being that is worthy of worship, is that it is perfect. Moreover, changing God's definable traits also does nothing to further the religious arguement. To change his traits would be to admit that the old definition was wrong, and that God, as most religious believers understand, does not exist. Theologians must prove the all-powerful, perfect God in order to be 'right' and in order to salvage the existance of God.Gods don't necessarily ahve to perform miracles or be perfect. The sumerian Gods were considered quite cruel and malicious, beings who were neither perfect nor desiring to perform miracles. A definition of a God is simply a being who is greater than a human, an immortal. I cannot see why you ignore this. The hypothesis of God is just that, a hypothesis and there are many others that go into the same amount of detail with the whole omniscient idea.Note: I only address parts that seem unclear or seem to require attention. In other words, as I do agree with the majority of what you say, I find that sometimes you tend to be flawed and lacking in details on minor parts that tend to hold up that argument.*shrugs* Again I most likely am wrong.
#4037
Guest_Master_SL
-
- Guest
Posted 08 March 2007 - 12:20 AM
Buh you are mistaken what I meant in my post. I was actually describing wy they believed such a thing and comparing it to now. Back then they could not truly prove such a thing due to the fact they were unable to. The difference in teh god case is that there simply is no way to prove or disprove it.You posted while I was busy with my last post...so here is your own personal rebuttle to entertain you.I'm sure you are familiar with the Flying Spaghetti Monster. If not, look it up. In what way can you postulate that this being is any less probable than God? Keep in mind, mass belief is simply not a mode through which you can claim legitimacy. As you've stated, the majority of people believed in a flat earth in olden times. That was untrue. Mass belief is NOT an acceptable defense.
Read my first post concerning fictitious beings.If you're going to suggest that the FLying Spaghetti Monster is one of those unfound species, let me save you the trouble and assure you that that holy book also claims that this being is beyond our understanding. This all follows the same function as any other fiction beast or character. We cannot prove that it does exist, but we can express just how infintesimally improbable that being's existance is.
*shakes his head* The thing is those huge leaps and bounds are actually little tiny steps.the human genome project alone took quite a good amount of time even WITH the most current technology and hundreds of scientists working on it. The idea that complete knowledge is an impossiblity because there will ALWAYS be one thing or another that eludes science and technology. There is no way of avoiding such a fact.Now, you've said that the evidence whether or not God exists will never surface. Well, I beg to differ. Science and technology grow by such large leaps and bounds every year, that it is highly improbable that all the gaps in scientific knowledge will remain empty.
*Wags the finger*Except you're using examples of science to compare it to something of religion which has eluded science. It is not often that science can prove the many event sthat occurred in religion (though it has such as the great flood and such though not to the enormous degree as the Bible says) In other words, there are many things Science will NEVER be able to prove because of the fact that we cannot go back in time to confirm the eevents and two, such evidence would be gone by the time we have any technology to confuirm whatever was claimed.When all these gaps are filled, where will believers hide their God? Darwin has all ready proven that intelligent design is a fallacy, and Einstein that instantanious travel is impossibly imporbable. It was once claimed that no one would be able to directly examine the sun. Galileo did it. Do not make too many claims that science cannot achieve something. It is simply a matter of time, and even if we do not know now, that does not give believers the right to claim existance in the meantime.
Except that sucha theory is just as flawed as the one that attempts to support it. The impossibility to prove or disprove the idea of an omnicscient being is the same as trying to find the one true origin of all existance since i think you mentioned it before) that there will always be the thing of saying, what created this, so what created the this that created us and so on and so forth. Like wise, many of those theories hold more weight because unliek the God hyptohesis and amny others, they can be debated and can have evidence that further supports ethat theory. You placed instnces of Provable theory but not any that are inprovable and still holding weight to them since they could not be disproved due to lack of evidence either. So you will continously run into the problem of religion and science, a brother and sister who cannot hold hands or even look at each other ebcause they will fight, b never agree and never be able toprove the other wrong except for several small historical times which can be seen today or identified by scientific means. INow, the Big Bang theory has not been thrown out as an 'impossibility'. It was always considered to be improbable. But the degree to which it is probable in relation to other theories allows us to put backing behind it. There has been evidence brought forward to support it, and help disprove the competing, creationsit theory. It is a fact that the universe is expanding, and scientists, through math, have pointed out that it is all escaping from the same point. This may not seem like a monolithic discovery, but the fact that everything in the universe is travelling away from a single point in the same universe goes miles to discredit the creationist theory. The holy texts describe creation as the creation of Earth and the Sun as singular events, not something that happenned at some point between one solar system and the next. So, even if the universe's creation through scientific theory is improbable, it is still much more probable, as it has scientific evidence in its defense, than a creationist theory.Responsibility immediately fell to the believers of a flat earth once there was a theory to challenge it. There is a theory that challenges God's existance, and thus the onus falls back to the believers.
It's that from what I read from the small summary. His ideas have many holes that are easily exploited. For one he declares that one should not believe in anything without basis or evidence, since that is true then it wouuld be foolish mto listen ot many scientific theories that though proven, are not law and therefore are still subject to being torn apart. To me, it seems as if what you said makes him appear as if the idea needs to be concrete in order to be followed.Example: The law of gravity does not explain the orbit of the Earth but the theory of it does. However, the theory is not a law since there are holes in it that have not yet been proven or cannot be proven so does that mean it would ahve to be ignored?I would also like to point out that you've included in your analogy a horrid cruelty to your own claim. You've compared believers in God to those who believed in a flat earth. Are you suggesting that God believers are ultimately doomed to be wrong?I believe I refferred you to Clifford's work in this case, which does not single out religion in this sense, but anything that bases itself upon a lack of evidence. The main point behind his work is that, as a human and therefore a morally autonomous agent, we should not go ahead and believe in anything without sufficient evidence and research. To do so would mean you are a credulous being, vulnerable to other ideas without basis. This gullibility would be passed on throughout the generations, as, assuredly, one would pass their ideas and beliefs unto their children, and children's children. Therefore, this belief in ideas without basis, would spawn a credulous society that credits fiction before truth.Again, read his work to get a proper jyst of the concept. I dare not try to explain in it a fully, rhetorically based explanation, for I'd be here all day, when the essay that has done all that work is all ready out there.
Really? Well it wuld be hard for you since it is your writing.A) I don't see where my tone, nor my vocabulary honestly changed. Nor do I see the statement as uncharacteristic in light of its prior post.
True but it would be better to enlighten themr ather than crush them beneath your foot like you would a cockroach.Question what do you study?As your main I mean.B) THe fact that those who do not have access to the information that would pertain to this arguement are trying to involve themselves, really is counter-productive. If they've nothing to add that is of value, why are they adding it? Especially if they cede to they fact they do now have an understanding of the material on which they are commenting. To them, I should be the most harsh, in hopes to rid this thread of frivilous posts.
Edited by Master_SL, 08 March 2007 - 12:30 AM.
#4038
Guest_amateursuperhero
-
- Guest
Posted 08 March 2007 - 12:40 AM
Darwin, by no means, associated the discovery of natural selection with the meaning of life. This is an arrogant stretch made by biologists with no understanding of philosophy. You ought to read some Wallace before you start applying natural selection to human culture and identity.Darwin has covered this. You should his work, as he's far more influential that you've given him credit for. Our "purpose" is to pass on our genes. It's simply that simple. Everything we do is ultimately related to that goal. Anything we do that does not enhance our ability to do so, will be evolved out of our existance. So, in what way is creating a biological legacy not enough for you? Is creating life with a partner simply not as glorious as heaven and hell? That arguement is simply absurd. You cannot postualte God's existance based on your own greedy needs. Again, you've committed a fallacious, theological error.
#4039
-
- Member
-
- 16 posts
Egg
Posted 08 March 2007 - 12:49 AM
#4040
Guest_amateursuperhero
-
- Guest
Posted 08 March 2007 - 01:39 AM
The FSM thought experiment only serves to disprove an medieval notion of God. It hardly dents the argument for the omnipotent being "God" we have been discussing here. This debate is not about the nature of "God" it is about whether or not he exists. It is foolish to think the only argument for God is majority opinion.You posted while I was busy with my last post...so here is your own personal rebuttle to entertain you.I'm sure you are familiar with the Flying Spaghetti Monster. If not, look it up. In what way can you postulate that this being is any less probable than God? Keep in mind, mass belief is simply not a mode through which you can claim legitimacy. As you've stated, the majority of people believed in a flat earth in olden times. That was untrue. Mass belief is NOT an acceptable defense. If you're going to suggest that the FLying Spaghetti Monster is one of those unfound species, let me save you the trouble and assure you that that holy book also claims that this being is beyond our understanding. This all follows the same function as any other fiction beast or character. We cannot prove that it does exist, but we can express just how infintesimally improbable that being's existance is.
What an enormous assumption. Believing that something will surely continue to solve problems is a foolish way of thinking, especially under the guise of a scientist. I noticed your use of Clifford below, in this point you are making right here, you are acting as the proverbial "shipowner."Now, you've said that the evidence whether or not God exists will never surface. Well, I beg to differ. Science and technology grow by such large leaps and bounds every year, that it is highly improbable that all the gaps in scientific knowledge will remain empty.When all these gaps are filled, where will believers hide their God?
And why not? Furthermore, isn't believing that "science will someday disproove God, so belief in him is foolish" unjustified equally by your logic. Were these scientists not guided by a burning belief inside of them before their science confirmed their hypotheses? Belief is a necessary aspect of the human condition. Empiricism may work with chemistry and physics but there are plenty of things it does not. Read William James's "The Will to Believe." I think you'd appreciate his point of view.Darwin has all ready proven that intelligent design is a fallacy, and Einstein that instantanious travel is impossibly imporbable. It was once claimed that no one would be able to directly examine the sun. Galileo did it. Do not make too many claims that science cannot achieve something. It is simply a matter of time, and even if we do not know now, that does not give believers the right to claim existance in the meantime.
The big bang only discredits the classicalist view of creationism, by no means disprooving God, as I'm sure you're aware.Now, the Big Bang theory has not been thrown out as an 'impossibility'. It was always considered to be improbable. But the degree to which it is probable in relation to other theories allows us to put backing behind it. There has been evidence brought forward to support it, and help disprove the competing, creationsit theory. It is a fact that the universe is expanding, and scientists, through math, have pointed out that it is all escaping from the same point. This may not seem like a monolithic discovery, but the fact that everything in the universe is travelling away from a single point in the same universe goes miles to discredit the creationist theory. The holy texts describe creation as the creation of Earth and the Sun as singular events, not something that happenned at some point between one solar system and the next. So, even if the universe's creation through scientific theory is improbable, it is still much more probable, as it has scientific evidence in its defense, than a creationist theory.Responsibility immediately fell to the believers of a flat earth once there was a theory to challenge it. There is a theory that challenges God's existance, and thus the onus falls back to the believers.
Again, read James. Clifford's entire argument can be discreditted with one simple question: What on earth determines what evidence is sufficient or not? Clifford never makes this distinction in his essay. Clifford's essay is a poor attempt at targetting the "right" of a person to believe rather than the object of his belief. It's a flawed attack as I and, much more eloquently, James have pointed out. I'd love to continue talking about the nature of belief and the responsibilities it entails, but I really think that's a different topic altogether. I suggest we move back towards the topic of why or why not God could exist, it's a much more interesting discussion. My explanation of God, for instance, has gone undiscussed as well as numerous other individuals'.I would also like to point out that you've included in your analogy a horrid cruelty to your own claim. You've compared believers in God to those who believed in a flat earth. Are you suggesting that God believers are ultimately doomed to be wrong?I believe I refferred you to Clifford's work in this case, which does not single out religion in this sense, but anything that bases itself upon a lack of evidence. The main point behind his work is that, as a human and therefore a morally autonomous agent, we should not go ahead and believe in anything without sufficient evidence and research. To do so would mean you are a credulous being, vulnerable to other ideas without basis. This gullibility would be passed on throughout the generations, as, assuredly, one would pass their ideas and beliefs unto their children, and children's children. Therefore, this belief in ideas without basis, would spawn a credulous society that credits fiction before truth.Again, read his work to get a proper jyst of the concept. I dare not try to explain in it a fully, rhetorically based explanation, for I'd be here all day, when the essay that has done all that work is all ready out there.
#4041
Guest_pixelatenein
-
- Guest
Posted 08 March 2007 - 02:32 AM
Darwin was a good, god-fearing christian for most of his life. and he didn't prove anything. he theorized.Darwin has all ready proven that intelligent design is a fallacy
haha, you don't know ****. neither do i. noone KNOWS anyting. you think there is a god.i hate how everybody thinks they KNOW. unless you can prove there is a god, you don't know.I know there is a God.
Edited by pixelatenein, 08 March 2007 - 02:34 AM.
#4042
Guest_wscaves
-
- Guest
Posted 08 March 2007 - 03:14 AM
#4043
Guest_Death-Jester
-
- Guest
Posted 08 March 2007 - 01:04 PM
Very well Ill admit to being mistaken in my comparison of god to a dimension but: my note on String theory was merely an example of a scientific theory using higher dimensions and relying on spaces outside our universe, it doesn't necessarily have to directly relate to God, it merely aided the point that spaces and dimensions outside our universe can exist, and while you shot down the theory that God could have existed there due to this implying that God would have an origin (which would degrade from his title as God) within this dimension, and if not then where did he reside before hand, the idea was to show that Science has began exploring the idea of areas outside our universe, and if so then Gods realm of existance beyond this universe, while perhaps not being physical as this would defy the definition of his realm, doean't seem quite so farfetched as spaces beyond this universe are being hypothesised.As for the meaning of life, it makes all the difference in the end. I find the idea of death wherein my conscience simply ceases to exist absolutely terrifying and your saying that you find peace and happiness in that we're simply here because we're here? Don't you find that in the least bit degradeing. As for Darwins theory, yes hes influential, but hes basically glorifying the point that lifes only point is to continue life, which in itself is rather pointless as it would just be a vain cycle ultimately coming to nothingness. Yes we may be contributing to the evolution of our specie, but evolution has just about come to nothing as humans no longer need to adapt to the environment, we adapt it to us now. I cannot find peace in contributing to a biological legacy because its basically saying that we're pointless beings of meat who are only in existance to have sex, leave it to future generations to evolve beyond our faults.And finally just something in defence of the religious institutions in place. Even if they are completely wrong about God, to take God and the Churches (here churches refers to all religious institutions for want of a better word) away from the masses would be to take inspiration, meaning, and in fact happiness away from anywhere between thousands and billions of people globally. Such things can unify people and teach us morals and value of what is right and wrong, and to take away such a foundation of society by trying to disprove God by saying that we have no substantial proof of him would be to tear apart an idea that holds billions together. Yes they have made grievious errors in the past, but is it worth either clinging onto old grudges or synically trying to tear apart something simply because you dont see value in it when so many find such guidance, inspiration, meaning and in all, happiness within it. That seems pretty selfish.And here we go again...I believe I've all ready covered this, but, admittedly, I never thought that a believer would actually make it through my last post. If you postulate that God is something other than a being of total omnipotence, omniscience, love, and good, then you've gone and assigned the name "God" to the wrong thing. God has to be a BEING worthy of worship, who listens to prayers, answers them, and performs miracles. If God were not this being, which certainly does not exist, then what is it exactly religious believers have been worhsipping all this time? An event, or a dimension? If indeed you are suggesting that God is simply another dimension, and I sincerely hope you aren't because that would be a tragic fallacy, then what of prayer? What of worship, mass, organized religion? You've committed a typical theological mistake, in that you've attributed the name of God to something that does not fit the God Hypothesis. In doing so, you haven't proven the existance of a god, you've postulated the existance of some other idea, and attributed it with the name of God.More over, in what way does this string theory support the idea that God is indeed a dimension? It would suggest that this dimension has a consciousness, which signals us to know that it is not simple, and therefore it would need a creator. A more creative explanation for your God postulation would be that God exists within this alternate dimension. Else, the infinite cycle I explained in my last post would discredit your hypothesis. Now, even if God exists just within your little dimension, that calls into question that being's identity as God. If this dimension has always existed, then did God create it and then choose to reside in it? Or was God created from within in it? Of course, you could never admit to God being created, that immediately falsifying the claim as the intelligent designer, so then you would have to choose the former. The former suggests however, that God exists outside that continuity anyway, and would not require that dimension. So, his existance in or as that dimension would both not facilitate a sufficient explanation of God's existance.In accordance to your point on meaning in life: what difference does it make in the end? Does life require a meaning outside of itself? Is existing not enough? Must there be a purpose behind it? Why must there be one? Are humans so goal driven that we cannot imagine a situation in which there is no reward after a long, arduous, ordeal? Darwin has covered this. You should his work, as he's far more influential that you've given him credit for. Our "purpose" is to pass on our genes. It's simply that simple. Everything we do is ultimately related to that goal. Anything we do that does not enhance our ability to do so, will be evolved out of our existance. So, in what way is creating a biological legacy not enough for you? Is creating life with a partner simply not as glorious as heaven and hell? That arguement is simply absurd. You cannot postualte God's existance based on your own greedy needs. Again, you've committed a fallacious, theological error.
#4044
Guest_PKbomb666
-
- Guest
Posted 09 March 2007 - 12:27 AM
#4045
-
- Member
-
- 37 posts
Egg
Posted 09 March 2007 - 12:38 AM
"With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion."
"The fact that a believer is happier than a sceptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality."
"We must question the story logic of having an all-knowing all-powerful God, who creates faulty Humans, and then blames them for his own mistakes."
"Ocean: A body of water occupying 2/3 of a world made for man...who has no gills."
There; 5 quotes from REAL people that accurately convey my beliefs."We must repsect the other fellow's religion, but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children are smart."
#4046
-
- Member
-
- 227 posts
Serpent
Posted 09 March 2007 - 01:14 AM
Edited by Huang Fei Hong, 03 April 2007 - 03:10 PM.
#4047
Guest_SilentOcean
-
- Guest
Posted 09 March 2007 - 04:14 AM
He is god can't he see everything? Also i did so many wrong things im quite ashamed lolJust don't let them see you doing the wrong thing! Then you can pretty much get away with anything.
#4048
Guest_amateursuperhero
-
- Guest
Posted 09 March 2007 - 05:05 AM
Good post, I essentially made the same argument in some other thread not too long ago. The "first cause" argument is one the atheists tend to avoid, as I'm sure will be the trend here. I personally find it the most convincing argument for God."The effects we acknowledge naturally, do include a power of their producing, before they were produced; and that power presupposeth something existent that hath such power; and the thing so existing with power to produce, if it were not eternal, must needs have been produced by somewhat before it, and that again by something else before that, till we come to an eternal, that is to say, the first power of all powers and first cause of all causes; and this is it which all men conceive by the name of God, implying eternity, incomprehensibility, and omnipotence."– Thomas Hobbes, Works, vol. 4, pp. 59-60; quoted in John Orr, English Deism, p. 76In list format:1. Every finite and contingent being has a cause. 2. Nothing finite and dependent (contingent) can cause itself. 3. A causal chain cannot be of infinite length. 4. Therefore, there must be a first cause; or, there must be something which is not an effect.
Here lies my only problem with your post. The exact argument you're making, in nearly identical language, was made my Saint Thomas Aquinas in the 13th century, long before the deist movement. Read Aquinas's "Five Proofs," and Saint Anselm's ontological proof while you're at it. People, and I mean not just you Huang, on this board are much to quick to dismiss the religious as simpletons.Yes this covers everything we'd talked about already, probably gives better proof for God than the Christans or other religious believers of a God could. Deism is more about logic and reasoning than faith so it's a philosophy rather than a religion.
#4049
-
- Member
-
- 227 posts
Serpent
Posted 09 March 2007 - 05:16 AM
Ahh I didn't mean it QUITE like that.I know that the argument predates Deism. HOWEVER, Deists are more aware of the said argument as it is one of our prime tenets. Deism has roots in Christianity obviously.Now as to assuming religious men are simpletons: no, I don't. However, the core concept of religion is faith rather than the analytical dissection of the nature of God's existance. Many advancements were made by the religious. Mendel, Kierkegaard, and countless other great minds in history were religious.So I apologize for the confusion. I was just pointing out that Deism, which is nothing new, isn't a religion, for those who haven't heard about it. It has, however, fallen off the map as of late.Here lies my only problem with your post. The exact argument you're making, in nearly identical language, was made my Saint Thomas Aquinas in the 13th century, long before the deist movement. Read Aquinas's "Five Proofs," and Saint Anselm's ontological proof while you're at it. People, and I mean not just you Huang, on this board are much to quick to dismiss the religious as simpletons.
Edited by Huang Fei Hong, 09 March 2007 - 06:28 AM.
#4050
Guest_repubcanuck
-
- Guest
Posted 09 March 2007 - 05:23 AM
