New topic
Printable| Moderator |
IceNine said: Given 4.5 billion years, anything is possible... So you argue that all this evolved? All Rights Reserved. |
- E-mail - orgNote -  Report post to moderator |
ItalianToy said: And people like this often quote other people, such as Isaac Newton, Einstein, Jefferson, etc.
 While believers often times quote the bible! :LOL: ... [This message was edited Thu Oct 24 10:53:19 PDT 2002 by IceNine] SUPERJOINT RITUAL - http://www.superjointritual.com
A Lethal Dose of American Hatred | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
yamomma said: IceNine said: Given 4.5 billion years, anything is possible... So you argue that all this evolved? Yes. I believe that everything that exists came into being by change over time... we can still observe the universe changing, so there is no reason to believe that change has not always been the rule. SUPERJOINT RITUAL - http://www.superjointritual.com
A Lethal Dose of American Hatred | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
IceNine said: ItalianToy said: IceNine said: yamomma said: “If a benevolent God does exist, why does He allow these things to happen?”
The implication of their question is clear. Since these things do happen, God must not exist. After all, you reason, no truly benevolent God would allow such things to occur. Since they do occur, the God depicted within the pages of the Hebrew and Christian Scriptures must not exist. Such a charge, however, ignores the reason(s) for human suffering, and the potential intrinsic value that can be gained from such suffering. My argument is that there is no good reason for suffering... my thinking is very much like that of Buddhists. But unlike you, Buddhists don't blame God for suffering. They blame attachment to the physical. I don't blame god for anything... I do not believe in god, therefore I cannot blame anything on it. Think before you post. 
I'd like to order some immaturity with a side of objectivity, hold the insults, please.  
ANYway, you are trying to portray "our" God as benevolent. Of course you are going to misinterpret His purpose and His intention because you do not believe. and it's always those who don't believe that spend the most time thinking about God an trying to find ways of converting those who believe to their less enlightened side. I'm not trying to convert you because you will come to Him when you realise, I'm just trying to disspell this notion you have of "our" God because it is false and you seem to think we're all Ned Flanders. Of course I'm going to argue in His name. But I'm not evangelizing nor will I hesitate to say that the things you have said about God are the result of a closed mind and restrictive thought. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
IceNine said: ItalianToy said: And people like this often quote other people, such as Isaac Newton, Einstein, Jefferson, etc.
While believers often times quote the bible! :LOL: ... [This message was edited Thu Oct 24 10:53:19 PDT 2002 by IceNine] Have you seen me quote the Bible thus far? Umm..that'd be a no. I only quote it to those who say they believe, and I only quote it to them when they have done something opposite of what the Bible says they should do. And sometimes I need a reminder of what His word is, and I welcome that too for I acknowledge my mistakes.
I don't quote the Bible to non-believers because it is pointless. But it's just as pointless for you to quote Enstein or Newton to me, because although they were smart men, they are no better than me and no more enlightened than I am. And why should I tak religious advice from scientists? P.S. Einstein also acknowledged that there are miracles, things that cannot be explained by your science. But of course, you omit that.  | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
ItalianToy said: IceNine said: ItalianToy said: IceNine said: yamomma said: “If a benevolent God does exist, why does He allow these things to happen?”
The implication of their question is clear. Since these things do happen, God must not exist. After all, you reason, no truly benevolent God would allow such things to occur. Since they do occur, the God depicted within the pages of the Hebrew and Christian Scriptures must not exist. Such a charge, however, ignores the reason(s) for human suffering, and the potential intrinsic value that can be gained from such suffering. My argument is that there is no good reason for suffering... my thinking is very much like that of Buddhists. But unlike you, Buddhists don't blame God for suffering. They blame attachment to the physical. I don't blame god for anything... I do not believe in god, therefore I cannot blame anything on it. Think before you post.
I'd like to order some immaturity with a side of objectivity, hold the insults, please.
ANYway, you are trying to portray "our" God as benevolent. Of course you are going to misinterpret His purpose and His intention because you do not believe. and it's always those who don't believe that spend the most time thinking about God an trying to find ways of converting those who believe to their less enlightened side. I'm not trying to convert you because you will come to Him when you realise, I'm just trying to disspell this notion you have of "our" God because it is false and you seem to think we're all Ned Flanders. Of course I'm going to argue in His name. But I'm not evangelizing nor will I hesitate to say that the things you have said about God are the result of a closed mind and restrictive thought. First: I didn't insult anyone. I pointed out a giant flaw in your post and told you to think before you post. There is nothing wrong with that. Second: I NEVER try to convert anyone... EVER. Trying to convert someone is not my goal or anything that I am interested in. I enjoy discussing this topic, but my views are strictly my views and I do not expect anyone to change what they think because of my statements. Third: Have you ever heard of missionaries??? These people BELIEVE in god... did you hear about the INQUISITION or the CRUSADES??? Don't try to tell me that atheists are responsible for trying to convert people. Believers are about 99% more likely to try to convert others. Fourth: Who is more closed-minded, the ones who try to think or those who believe things on faith? Nep2nes, please work on your logic and argument before you post. WellBeyond makes salient points while you post things that are not based in sound logic, historical fact or reason. SUPERJOINT RITUAL - http://www.superjointritual.com
A Lethal Dose of American Hatred | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
ItalianToy said: IceNine said: ItalianToy said: And people like this often quote other people, such as Isaac Newton, Einstein, Jefferson, etc.
While believers often times quote the bible! :LOL: Have you seen me quote the Bible thus far? Umm..that'd be a no. I only quote it to those who say they believe, and I only quote it to them when they have done something opposite of what the Bible says they should do. And sometimes I need a reminder of what His word is, and I welcome that too for I acknowledge my mistakes.
I don't quote the Bible to non-believers because it is pointless. But it's just as pointless for you to quote Enstein or Newton to me, because although they were smart men, they are no better than me and no more enlightened than I am. And why should I tak religious advice from scientists? P.S. Einstein also acknowledged that there are miracles, things that cannot be explained by your science. But of course, you omit that. As nep2nes, you have quoted the bible. AND Einstein flatly denied belief in a loving god and the bible... he also did not believe in miracles. He mentioned hidden variables in physics, but those hidden variables were not the caprices of a god. SUPERJOINT RITUAL - http://www.superjointritual.com
A Lethal Dose of American Hatred | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
| Moderator |
IceNine said: yamomma said: IceNine said: Given 4.5 billion years, anything is possible... So you argue that all this evolved? Yes. I believe that everything that exists came into being by change over time... we can still observe the universe changing, so there is no reason to believe that change has not always been the rule. The problem with that is... Wouldn't there be an abundence of evidense, (fossils, etc.) of these evolving species? Like a ape-man thingy? or a dino-bird-lizard? All Rights Reserved. |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
| Moderator |
It just seems like we'd see more evolution evidense in fossils if they are supposed to millions of years old and such.
Every species seems to be really distict from one form to another, and no variation patterns inbetween. All Rights Reserved. |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
yamomma said: IceNine said: yamomma said: IceNine said: Given 4.5 billion years, anything is possible... So you argue that all this evolved? Yes. I believe that everything that exists came into being by change over time... we can still observe the universe changing, so there is no reason to believe that change has not always been the rule. The problem with that is... Wouldn't there be an abundence of evidense, (fossils, etc.) of these evolving species? Like a ape-man thingy? or a dino-bird-lizard? There are not any ape-men fossils that I am aware of, but there are dino-bird-lizard things... Archaeopteryx and Protavis Texinsis There are a great number of variations in the fossil record... SUPERJOINT RITUAL - http://www.superjointritual.com
A Lethal Dose of American Hatred | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
IceNine said: I think that humans, as a rule, desire to know, but I do not believe that most believers try to approach the subject with reason or intellect.
Just a point where we differ...I do think most do...I think you focus too much on those who use quotes from their "Bibles", or more specifically, you feel that since they do, that those Bible quotes are all they've used to reach the conclusions they've reached...I won't deny that there are numerous believers who don't delve very deeply into the analytical or intellectual when reaching their conclusions about the existence of God...but I believe that most people truly do...we've moved well beyond the point of saying earthquakes and thunderstorms are the acts of an angry God...unfortunately, though, even when reason and intellect is used, it's often played down as irrelevant if the conclusion one reaches from that reason and intellect is that God exists... I also feel that pinning our existence on a supreme being is as irrational as you believe that it is to not believe in a supreme being. Is it more rational to believe that things just are or that there is some strange, mythical being that created things.
Well, those who believe don't consider God to be either strange or mythical...lol...nobody who believes in God believes in anything strange or mythical...that you feel they do doesn't mean they do... I believe that the idea of god is born out of humankind's inability to grasp the idea of the birth of the universe. Humans want to know who created the universe and say that god must have done it... well, who created god? If something must be without cause, it may as well be the universe as god.
Ah, but doesn't science have "evidence" that the universe was indeed "started"??...If so, then we can't truly say that the universe is the "god without cause", can we...if our scientific knowledge points squarely to the universe having a beginning, then we must contemplate both what existed before it began, and what caused it to begin...as well as why it was begun in the first place... As far as non-believers and science moving forward goes, religion has been a VERY big obstacle to science throughout history and has never helped the cause of science.
You are doing what Aero did in his thread, that is, mixing up "believers" and "religion" as being one and the same...they aren't...religion is an institution, and one which became rather powerful (and still is)...belief in God, however, has not for one second hindered scientific research and development at any point in our human history...in fact, an argument could be made that the existence in a belief in God helped spur much of our desires for scientific discovery, even if just to "prove" God's non-existence...lol Interior knowledge is necessarily subjective and can never be objective due to the very fact that it is personal and internal. Science cannot be subjective and must always be objective in its goals and aims.
Sure, "interior evidence" will have more of an impact on people than "exterior evidence" because it is of a personal and subjective nature, therefore it is resonates strongly, as it is born out of internal wish fulfillment, whereas "exterior evidence" must be processed through the eyes of reason. Things of an internal nature get processed thru the eyes of reason as well, make no mistake... As far as the sun is concerned, we would not see it within 8 minutes of its burning out, so we can be pretty certain that it still exists. We are also talking about an observable phenomenon or object whereas god is not observable, testable or provable. We can prove that the sun exists but we cannot prove anything about god. Furthermore, internal experiences are nothing more than electro-chemical messages bouncing around the brain. The delusions of a schizophrenic are COMPLETELY real to him.
That's the thing I was geting at, though...you are already saying that it is impossible to show external "proof" or "evidence" of God's existence...which means you're asking people to do the impossible...that even if evidence exists, you've already determined that it's not really proof at all...you've set up your reality as "a world in which nothing exists which proves God's existence"...and you're asking someone to completely change your world...and, like in my sun example, all one can really do is point to what they consider to be "proof" and "evidence"...but what they're really doing is pointing to something you yourself see everyday, and have fully percieved as being nothing...them pointing to it won't change your mind if the mere existence of it by itself doesn't effect you...that's why I used the sun example...if that bright, burning, hot globe of fire shining down on someone everyday isn't enough in their mind to prove it exists, then there's nothing anyone can say or do to "prove" it to you otherwise... Correct! There is no reason "why" the universe was created. there also need be no reason for the universe's existence.
Why isn't there a reason??..Because science can come up with one that doesn't include the possibility of intelligent, purposeful design??...If that's the only reason why anyone truly believes there's no reason "why" the universe was created, then they aren't truly following the spirit of authentic scientific study...at that point, a person like that goes into it all with a conclusion already in place(that there's no purposeful design to the universe), and discounts any scientific evidence which proves otherwise (that there is indeed evidence of purposeful, intelligent design behind how the universe works and develops)... We only think that these things must have been created because we have seen men create them. There are naturally ocurring geometric shapes that have no need of being carved as well. In the case of Stonehenge, there are other monuments of a similar nature in the world and anthropologists have discovered many things about the uses and origins of them. I don't think that any scientist has ever believed that Stonehenge was created by god.
That, again, is my point though...lol...we think man is the ultimate creator...and if or until we can create something, then it's existence was caused by nature or by "accident"... The reality is this: we can only know if the universe can occur, develop and exist as it has if we have other universes to compare it to...we don't... We certainly cannot create a universe and that is why people believe in god. Since we cannot conceive of the creation of the universe, we pin it on a supreme being that is so much more powerful than us who can do anything imaginable.
I also think it's the reason some can't concieve of the universe as being created...that, since we can't create it, it wasn't created... This is simply an unreasonable assumption in my mind. I think that arrogant is a demeaning term to use in relation to people who don't believe in god or creation.
Ah, but I didn't say people who don't believe in God are arrogant...I said not believing in the existence of God because something exist that mankind could not create was arrogant...the reasoning behind that type of logic used to reach that conclusion includes arrogance...because it says "nothing exists beyond our level of intelligence and existence...so if we can't do it, there is no intelligence behind it"... | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
yamomma said: IceNine said: yamomma said: IceNine said: Given 4.5 billion years, anything is possible... So you argue that all this evolved? Yes. I believe that everything that exists came into being by change over time... we can still observe the universe changing, so there is no reason to believe that change has not always been the rule. The problem with that is... Wouldn't there be an abundence of evidense, (fossils, etc.) of these evolving species? Like a ape-man thingy? or a dino-bird-lizard? Well, there are dino-bird-lizard thingies. -------------------------------------------------
Something new for your ears and soul. http://artists.mp3s.com/a...dadli.html | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
| Moderator |
IceNine said: yamomma said: IceNine said: yamomma said: IceNine said: Given 4.5 billion years, anything is possible... So you argue that all this evolved? Yes. I believe that everything that exists came into being by change over time... we can still observe the universe changing, so there is no reason to believe that change has not always been the rule. The problem with that is... Wouldn't there be an abundence of evidense, (fossils, etc.) of these evolving species? Like a ape-man thingy? or a dino-bird-lizard? There are not any ape-men fossils that I am aware of, but there are dino-bird-lizard things... Archaeopteryx and Protavis Texinsis There are a great number of variations in the fossil record... I'm aware of other separate distinct species having similarites of others. But what I'm not aware of are fossil records showing the evolutionary process, step by step. Each fossil record shows very distict species. Although some may be similar, they also may have been inter-breedable as well - Like a Bufalo and a cow. What I'm getting at there are always big jumps in the evolutionary ladder. All Rights Reserved. |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
wellbeyond said: IceNine said: I think that humans, as a rule, desire to know, but I do not believe that most believers try to approach the subject with reason or intellect.
Just a point where we differ...I do think most do...I think you focus too much on those who use quotes from their "Bibles", or more specifically, you feel that since they do, that those Bible quotes are all they've used to reach the conclusions they've reached...I won't deny that there are numerous believers who don't delve very deeply into the analytical or intellectual when reaching their conclusions about the existence of God...but I believe that most people truly do...we've moved well beyond the point of saying earthquakes and thunderstorms are the acts of an angry God...unfortunately, though, even when reason and intellect is used, it's often played down as irrelevant if the conclusion one reaches from that reason and intellect is that God exists... IceNine replied: You have a fine point. I do think that there are scientists out there who do believe in god and I will not deny that there are a great number of thinking believers. My comments were directed at the ones who believe that the bible is 100% law. All apologies to those who think and reason without blind faith. WellBeyond continued: IceNine said:
I also feel that pinning our existence on a supreme being is as irrational as you believe that it is to not believe in a supreme being. Is it more rational to believe that things just are or that there is some strange, mythical being that created things.
Well, those who believe don't consider God to be either strange or mythical...lol...nobody who believes in God believes in anything strange or mythical...that you feel they do doesn't mean they do... IceNine replied: You are quite right... believers probably don't find their beliefs strange at all, or they wouldn't believe. I meant to ask if it was more rational to believe that things just are or that everything must have been created by a supreme third party. The mythical and strange adjectives confused the question. WellBeyond continued: IceNine said:
I believe that the idea of god is born out of humankind's inability to grasp the idea of the birth of the universe. Humans want to know who created the universe and say that god must have done it... well, who created god? If something must be without cause, it may as well be the universe as god.
Ah, but doesn't science have "evidence" that the universe was indeed "started"??...If so, then we can't truly say that the universe is the "god without cause", can we...if our scientific knowledge points squarely to the universe having a beginning, then we must contemplate both what existed before it began, and what caused it to begin...as well as why it was begun in the first place... IceNine replied: If we say that the UNIVERSE is god, I am a deist and believe in god. This is the type of thing that Hawking, Einstein, et. al. are talking about when they mention god... some sort of underlying mathematics. WellBeyond continued: IceNine said:
As far as non-believers and science moving forward goes, religion has been a VERY big obstacle to science throughout history and has never helped the cause of science.
You are doing what Aero did in his thread, that is, mixing up "believers" and "religion" as being one and the same...they aren't...religion is an institution, and one which became rather powerful (and still is)...belief in God, however, has not for one second hindered scientific research and development at any point in our human history...in fact, an argument could be made that the existence in a belief in God helped spur much of our desires for scientific discovery, even if just to "prove" God's non-existence...lol IceNine replied: A fine point again. Organized religion is usually the enemy of science rather than all individual believers. I would agree that some great science has been done by believers. WellBeyond continued: IceNine said:
Interior knowledge is necessarily subjective and can never be objective due to the very fact that it is personal and internal. Science cannot be subjective and must always be objective in its goals and aims.
Sure, "interior evidence" will have more of an impact on people than "exterior evidence" because it is of a personal and subjective nature, therefore it is resonates strongly, as it is born out of internal wish fulfillment, whereas "exterior evidence" must be processed through the eyes of reason. Things of an internal nature get processed thru the eyes of reason as well, make no mistake... IceNine replied: Things of an internal nature get processed through the eyes of reason, but they are very personal and are therefore subject to misinterpretation due to the observer's affinity for the phenomenon. WellBeyond continued: IceNine said:
As far as the sun is concerned, we would not see it within 8 minutes of its burning out, so we can be pretty certain that it still exists. We are also talking about an observable phenomenon or object whereas god is not observable, testable or provable. We can prove that the sun exists but we cannot prove anything about god. Furthermore, internal experiences are nothing more than electro-chemical messages bouncing around the brain. The delusions of a schizophrenic are COMPLETELY real to him.
That's the thing I was geting at, though...you are already saying that it is impossible to show external "proof" or "evidence" of God's existence...which means you're asking people to do the impossible...that even if evidence exists, you've already determined that it's not really proof at all...you've set up your reality as "a world in which nothing exists which proves God's existence"...and you're asking someone to completely change your world...and, like in my sun example, all one can really do is point to what they consider to be "proof" and "evidence"...but what they're really doing is pointing to something you yourself see everyday, and have fully percieved as being nothing...them pointing to it won't change your mind if the mere existence of it by itself doesn't effect you...that's why I used the sun example...if that bright, burning, hot globe of fire shining down on someone everyday isn't enough in their mind to prove it exists, then there's nothing anyone can say or do to "prove" it to you otherwise... IceNine replied: What I am saying is that there is NO scientific evidence of the existence of god, whereas there is scientific evidence of all observable phenomena and objects. As far as the sun goes, you could present the observer with hard scientific data on the sun that would prove its existence, but it would be up to the observer to accept the data. At least the data would be empirical, testable and provable which is more than I can say for any spiritual claim. WellBeyond continued: IceNine said:
Correct! There is no reason "why" the universe was created. there also need be no reason for the universe's existence.
Why isn't there a reason??..Because science can come up with one that doesn't include the possibility of intelligent, purposeful design??...If that's the only reason why anyone truly believes there's no reason "why" the universe was created, then they aren't truly following the spirit of authentic scientific study...at that point, a person like that goes into it all with a conclusion already in place(that there's no purposeful design to the universe), and discounts any scientific evidence which proves otherwise (that there is indeed evidence of purposeful, intelligent design behind how the universe works and develops)... IceNine replied: I am saying that I believe that there is no intelligent directing mind that is responsible for the universe. All scientific research must be started with a hypothesis that you either set out to prove or disprove. Scientists always look for things that they want to see... the history of science is littered with discarded hypotheses... hypothoses that were disproved while the scientist was trying to prove them. In fact, all scientific data must be analyzed by numbers of independent researchers to verify the validity of the findings. If the findings are not conclusive or are disproven, the theory is dead. WellBeyond continued: IceNine said:
We only think that these things must have been created because we have seen men create them. There are naturally ocurring geometric shapes that have no need of being carved as well. In the case of Stonehenge, there are other monuments of a similar nature in the world and anthropologists have discovered many things about the uses and origins of them. I don't think that any scientist has ever believed that Stonehenge was created by god.
That, again, is my point though...lol...we think man is the ultimate creator...and if or until we can create something, then it's existence was caused by nature or by "accident"... IceNine replied: Right. I honestly believe that the Grand Canyon was created by erosion. WellBeyond said: The reality is this: we can only know if the universe can occur, develop and exist as it has if we have other universes to compare it to...we don't... IceNine replied: Since the universe is the totality of all matter, we cannot have another universe to compare with. WellBeyond continued: IceNine said:
We certainly cannot create a universe and that is why people believe in god. Since we cannot conceive of the creation of the universe, we pin it on a supreme being that is so much more powerful than us who can do anything imaginable.
I also think it's the reason some can't concieve of the universe as being created...that, since we can't create it, it wasn't created... IceNine replied: That is possible, although that is absolutely not my belief. WellBeyond continued: IceNine said:
This is simply an unreasonable assumption in my mind. I think that arrogant is a demeaning term to use in relation to people who don't believe in god or creation.
Ah, but I didn't say people who don't believe in God are arrogant...I said not believing in the existence of God because something exist that mankind could not create was arrogant...the reasoning behind that type of logic used to reach that conclusion includes arrogance...because it says "nothing exists beyond our level of intelligence and existence...so if we can't do it, there is no intelligence behind it"... IceNine replied: I don't think that there is arrogance involved and I don't think that human intelligence is anything special, I just don't believe in a universal directing mind. I cannot create a planet, but I don't believe that a thinking being is necessary for the creation of a planet. I believe that the forces of physics are perfectly capable of doing the job. I am not jealous of physics and I do not think that physics are arrogant because they can do things that I cannot. SUPERJOINT RITUAL - http://www.superjointritual.com
A Lethal Dose of American Hatred | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
IceNine said: Since the universe is the totality of all matter, we cannot have another universe to compare with. How do we know that we aren't small little organisms that are living inside of another organism that to us would only be the size of a dime, but seems like a universe to our perspective? And,, how do we know that there aren't more of these "universes"? Is there another form of spacetime beyond this spacetime as we know it? Is there more beyond just the barrier of light? Just because science as we know it has "proven" certain things with "human" technology, does not justify that humans are "correct" in their calculations, because it is based on only human information. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
JDODSON said: IceNine said: Since the universe is the totality of all matter, we cannot have another universe to compare with. How do we know that we aren't small little organisms that are living inside of another organism that to us would only be the size of a dime, but seems like a universe to our perspective? And,, how do we know that there aren't more of these "universes"? Is there another form of spacetime beyond this spacetime as we know it? Is there more beyond just the barrier of light? Just because science as we know it has "proven" certain things with "human" technology, does not justify that humans are "correct" in their calculations, because it is based on only human information. u·ni·verse Pronunciation Key (yn-vûrs) n. All matter and energy, including the earth, the galaxies, and the contents of intergalactic space, regarded as a whole. --- Would you really like me to start a discussion on quantum physics and reality? I am a student of quantum physics and superstring theory, so I have some ideas in that realm, but they do not apply to our current topic. SUPERJOINT RITUAL - http://www.superjointritual.com
A Lethal Dose of American Hatred | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
IceNine said: You are quite right... believers probably don't find their beliefs strange at all, or they wouldn't believe. I meant to ask if it was more rational to believe that things just are or that everything must have been created by a supreme third party. The mythical and strange adjectives confused the question.
Well, I personally think both are equally rational, considering all the "evidence", scientific or otherwise, which exists...I don't think believing there's "something more" at work here is any more or less rational than believing "nothing more" is at work...both belief systems have quite a bit of "proof" to suggest they could be correct... If we say that the UNIVERSE is god, I am a deist and believe in god. This is the type of thing that Hawking, Einstein, et. al. are talking about when they mention god... some sort of underlying mathematics.
If the universe is "god"...and our scientific knowledge points to the universe as having a beginning, as being "started"...then it would only make sense to believe that there's "something else" even greater than the universe which started or "created" it...with me, as long as there's evidence of a created, "evolving" universe, I won't be able to use the universe as the stopping point to our existence... Things of an internal nature get processed through the eyes of reason, but they are very personal and are therefore subject to misinterpretation due to the observer's affinity for the phenomenon.
Definitely true there...couldn't agree more...it's one of the main reasons "proof" of God's existence won't really be possible...I guess I just give those "things of an internal nature" more validity as being "real"... What I am saying is that there is NO scientific evidence of the existence of god, whereas there is scientific evidence of all observable phenomena and objects. As far as the sun goes, you could present the observer with hard scientific data on the sun that would prove its existence, but it would be up to the observer to accept the data. At least the data would be empirical, testable and provable which is more than I can say for any spiritual claim.
It probably boils down to what one considers "scientific evidence"...some see our mere existence as empirical, testable and provable evidence of God's existence...forget who said it, but it was once said "Man's attempt to prove God exists is like the waves trying to prove the ocean's existence"... I am saying that I believe that there is no intelligent directing mind that is responsible for the universe.
All scientific research must be started with a hypothesis that you either set out to prove or disprove. Scientists always look for things that they want to see... the history of science is littered with discarded hypotheses... hypothoses that were disproved while the scientist was trying to prove them. In fact, all scientific data must be analyzed by numbers of independent researchers to verify the validity of the findings. If the findings are not conclusive or are disproven, the theory is dead. That's only if the theory is allowed to exist within the scientific community to begin with...I think we both can agree that science has never desired for the theory of God's existence to be "proven" within its folds...disproven, perhaps yes...but not proven...and actually, science is very much like other religions, in which it has its doctrines and beliefs which are difficult to fall...you may have believers who are scientists, but science in itself is not a "believer" and does not promote "creation", and probably never has unless forced to by the state and religios institutions which shared the state's powers at the time...("Shape your theories and conclusions and evidence to support the existence of God, and especially the existence that our religion is the right one, or your head comes off!!"..lol)... Right. I honestly believe that the Grand Canyon was created by erosion.
The difference is, if man wanted to create a Grand Canyon, he could...if man wanted to create a universe, he can't... I don't think that there is arrogance involved and I don't think that human intelligence is anything special, I just don't believe in a universal directing mind.
I cannot create a planet, but I don't believe that a thinking being is necessary for the creation of a planet. I believe that the forces of physics are perfectly capable of doing the job. I am not jealous of physics and I do not think that physics are arrogant because they can do things that I cannot. This still goes back, I guess, to the "why" involved...there's so much evidence that creating and sustaining "life" is the underlying element behind the way the universe is, that "why" almost begs to be asked...it's a question that shouldn't be dismissed quite so easily and written off as "no reason, just is"... | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
IceNine said: u·ni·verse Pronunciation Key (yn-vûrs) n. All matter and energy, including the earth, the galaxies, and the contents of intergalactic space, regarded as a whole. --- Would you really like me to start a discussion on quantum physics and reality? I am a student of quantum physics and superstring theory, so I have some ideas in that realm, but they do not apply to our current topic. Actually, I would like to learn physics, because I did not get that far in my studies in my 2 years of college, but back to the issue of the universe definition, I was just trying to show that there are endless possibilities of thought beyond just the scientific limitations of mankind. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
wellbeyond said: IceNine said: You are quite right... believers probably don't find their beliefs strange at all, or they wouldn't believe. I meant to ask if it was more rational to believe that things just are or that everything must have been created by a supreme third party. The mythical and strange adjectives confused the question.
Well, I personally think both are equally rational, considering all the "evidence", scientific or otherwise, which exists...I don't think believing there's "something more" at work here is any more or less rational than believing "nothing more" is at work...both belief systems have quite a bit of "proof" to suggest they could be correct... IceNine said: Fair enough... it is pretty tough for me to argue against god because there is no scientific data or empirical evidence to dispute. WB said: IceNine said:
If we say that the UNIVERSE is god, I am a deist and believe in god. This is the type of thing that Hawking, Einstein, et. al. are talking about when they mention god... some sort of underlying mathematics.
If the universe is "god"...and our scientific knowledge points to the universe as having a beginning, as being "started"...then it would only make sense to believe that there's "something else" even greater than the universe which started or "created" it...with me, as long as there's evidence of a created, "evolving" universe, I won't be able to use the universe as the stopping point to our existence... IceNine replied: I will reiterate a previous reply: If anything is to be without cause, it may as well be the universe as god. WB said: IceNine said:
Things of an internal nature get processed through the eyes of reason, but they are very personal and are therefore subject to misinterpretation due to the observer's affinity for the phenomenon.
Definitely true there...couldn't agree more...it's one of the main reasons "proof" of God's existence won't really be possible...I guess I just give those "things of an internal nature" more validity as being "real"... IceNine replied: Yeppers... I just tend to go for the external proofs. WB said: IceNine said:
What I am saying is that there is NO scientific evidence of the existence of god, whereas there is scientific evidence of all observable phenomena and objects. As far as the sun goes, you could present the observer with hard scientific data on the sun that would prove its existence, but it would be up to the observer to accept the data. At least the data would be empirical, testable and provable which is more than I can say for any spiritual claim.
It probably boils down to what one considers "scientific evidence"...some see our mere existence as empirical, testable and provable evidence of God's existence...forget who said it, but it was once said "Man's attempt to prove God exists is like the waves trying to prove the ocean's existence"... IceNine replied: You can't use the mere existence of humans to prove the existence of god because there is still no evidence of god's having had anything to do with it. Since it is impossible to trace humanity back to god, we cannot say that god must exist simply because man exists. I could just as easily say that man exists because beings from Quarzkling 48 performed failed genetic experiments aiming at creating the perfect housepet... this does not make it so. The wave thing was a clever quote, by the way! WB said: IceNine said:
I am saying that I believe that there is no intelligent directing mind that is responsible for the universe.
All scientific research must be started with a hypothesis that you either set out to prove or disprove. Scientists always look for things that they want to see... the history of science is littered with discarded hypotheses... hypothoses that were disproved while the scientist was trying to prove them. In fact, all scientific data must be analyzed by numbers of independent researchers to verify the validity of the findings. If the findings are not conclusive or are disproven, the theory is dead. That's only if the theory is allowed to exist within the scientific community to begin with...I think we both can agree that science has never desired for the theory of God's existence to be "proven" within its folds...disproven, perhaps yes...but not proven...and actually, science is very much like other religions, in which it has its doctrines and beliefs which are difficult to fall...you may have believers who are scientists, but science in itself is not a "believer" and does not promote "creation", and probably never has unless forced to by the state and religios institutions which shared the state's powers at the time...("Shape your theories and conclusions and evidence to support the existence of God, and especially the existence that our religion is the right one, or your head comes off!!"..lol)... IceNine replied: True, true... you are VERY right about the part where the religious groups threatened scientists too... that happened a lot. And... you are right... science is almost a religion in that we seek to discover unknown things and sometimes make theories based on unknown things. WB said: IceNine said:
Right. I honestly believe that the Grand Canyon was created by erosion.
The difference is, if man wanted to create a Grand Canyon, he could...if man wanted to create a universe, he can't... IceNine said: That is because mankind is a very small force of nature in the grand scheme of things... this still doesn't mean that there is a god, it just means that man is not the most powerful physical force in the universe. WB said: IceNine said:
I don't think that there is arrogance involved and I don't think that human intelligence is anything special, I just don't believe in a universal directing mind.
I cannot create a planet, but I don't believe that a thinking being is necessary for the creation of a planet. I believe that the forces of physics are perfectly capable of doing the job. I am not jealous of physics and I do not think that physics are arrogant because they can do things that I cannot. This still goes back, I guess, to the "why" involved...there's so much evidence that creating and sustaining "life" is the underlying element behind the way the universe is, that "why" almost begs to be asked...it's a question that shouldn't be dismissed quite so easily and written off as "no reason, just is"... IceNine replied: There is also no reason to believe that there must have been a creator... I honestly believe that the idea that there MUST have been an intelligent creator of the universe is born out of mankind's inability to comprehend the mysteries of the universe. SUPERJOINT RITUAL - http://www.superjointritual.com
A Lethal Dose of American Hatred | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Damn, Ice, no wonder you have 7,000 posts already..heh..lol 8)
Kidding aside, though...I just think it boils down to this: 1) There seems to be some sort of "order" to the universe... 2) From what we can percieve thru scientific observation, the existence of carbon-based lifeforms on this particular planet is at least one result of that order... From those two things, it has come to pass that believing in a purposeful design to everything that surrounds us can be based on far more than just "myths and stories" still lingering around from when we knew nothing of our universe...considering all the scientific "evidence" out there, probably the best thing any one person can say to another is "I don't agree with what you believe...but I do think you have a sound, valid reason for believing it"...I don't think that gets said enough when it comes to this topic, from either side... | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
wellbeyond said: Damn, Ice, no wonder you have 7,000 posts already..heh..lol 8)
Kidding aside, though...I just think it boils down to this: 1) There seems to be some sort of "order" to the universe... 2) From what we can percieve thru scientific observation, the existence of carbon-based lifeforms on this particular planet is at least one result of that order... From those two things, it has come to pass that believing in a purposeful design to everything that surrounds us can be based on far more than just "myths and stories" still lingering around from when we knew nothing of our universe...considering all the scientific "evidence" out there, probably the best thing any one person can say to another is "I don't agree with what you believe...but I do think you have a sound, valid reason for believing it"...I don't think that gets said enough when it comes to this topic, from either side... That is the beauty of our discussion... neither of us has called the other one an asshole or an idiot and we have not called each other's ideas nonsense. We are having a solid debate and it is quite fun! This is the best way to go about these things... it certainly would not have gone like that if one of us had said "you are so fucking stupid" or something like that. Damn, I love debating with intelligent and thoughtful people! SUPERJOINT RITUAL - http://www.superjointritual.com
A Lethal Dose of American Hatred | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
LoL...so true...well, we did come slightly close with the "unintelligent" and "arrogant" remarks, but we cleared that shit up pronto..lol..And I agree, debate with an intelligent, thought-provoking and especially challenging person is indeed enjoyable...
Not as enjoyable as fucking a chicken in Kentucky, but damn close... | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
| Moderator |
IceNine said: wellbeyond said: Damn, Ice, no wonder you have 7,000 posts already..heh..lol 8)
Kidding aside, though...I just think it boils down to this: 1) There seems to be some sort of "order" to the universe... 2) From what we can percieve thru scientific observation, the existence of carbon-based lifeforms on this particular planet is at least one result of that order... From those two things, it has come to pass that believing in a purposeful design to everything that surrounds us can be based on far more than just "myths and stories" still lingering around from when we knew nothing of our universe...considering all the scientific "evidence" out there, probably the best thing any one person can say to another is "I don't agree with what you believe...but I do think you have a sound, valid reason for believing it"...I don't think that gets said enough when it comes to this topic, from either side... That is the beauty of our discussion... neither of us has called the other one an asshole or an idiot and we have not called each other's ideas nonsense. We are having a solid debate and it is quite fun! This is the best way to go about these things... it certainly would not have gone like that if one of us had said "you are so fucking stupid" or something like that. Damn, I love debating with intelligent and thoughtful people! I wish everyone had that attitude. I've seen some people get a little too hostile around here over opinion. All Rights Reserved. |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
yamomma said: I wish everyone had that attitude.
I've seen some people get a little too hostile around here over opinion. Me, too...my problem, though, is that I get frustrated not by someone's opinion, but if the logic they use to form it is flawed...lol...if the logic is good, though (like IceNine's), it's amazingly easy to get caught up inside a civil debate like this... | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
IceNine said: ItalianToy said: IceNine said: ItalianToy said: And people like this often quote other people, such as Isaac Newton, Einstein, Jefferson, etc.
While believers often times quote the bible! :LOL: Have you seen me quote the Bible thus far? Umm..that'd be a no. I only quote it to those who say they believe, and I only quote it to them when they have done something opposite of what the Bible says they should do. And sometimes I need a reminder of what His word is, and I welcome that too for I acknowledge my mistakes.
I don't quote the Bible to non-believers because it is pointless. But it's just as pointless for you to quote Enstein or Newton to me, because although they were smart men, they are no better than me and no more enlightened than I am. And why should I tak religious advice from scientists? P.S. Einstein also acknowledged that there are miracles, things that cannot be explained by your science. But of course, you omit that. As nep2nes, you have quoted the bible. AND Einstein flatly denied belief in a loving god and the bible... he also did not believe in miracles. He mentioned hidden variables in physics, but those hidden variables were not the caprices of a god. OK Ok...I get the whole "you are nep2nes" thing OK?  Think what you like. I have given her the password so that she could communicate using this account as well. I've had this account for centuries so stop assuming you know what's up. I kind of regret doing it because I've had to deal with so many boneheads.  I can honestly tell you that you are talking to ME, Dawn Jones, and NOT nep2nes right now! I'm not her darnit! 
Bloody fuck...  ... | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
ItalianToy said: IceNine said: ItalianToy said: IceNine said: ItalianToy said: And people like this often quote other people, such as Isaac Newton, Einstein, Jefferson, etc.
While believers often times quote the bible! :LOL: Have you seen me quote the Bible thus far? Umm..that'd be a no. I only quote it to those who say they believe, and I only quote it to them when they have done something opposite of what the Bible says they should do. And sometimes I need a reminder of what His word is, and I welcome that too for I acknowledge my mistakes.
I don't quote the Bible to non-believers because it is pointless. But it's just as pointless for you to quote Enstein or Newton to me, because although they were smart men, they are no better than me and no more enlightened than I am. And why should I tak religious advice from scientists? P.S. Einstein also acknowledged that there are miracles, things that cannot be explained by your science. But of course, you omit that. As nep2nes, you have quoted the bible. AND Einstein flatly denied belief in a loving god and the bible... he also did not believe in miracles. He mentioned hidden variables in physics, but those hidden variables were not the caprices of a god. OK Ok...I get the whole "you are nep2nes" thing OK? Think what you like. I have given her the password so that she could communicate using this account as well. I've had this account for centuries so stop assuming you know what's up. I kind of regret doing it because I've had to deal with so many boneheads. I can honestly tell you that you are talking to ME, Dawn Jones, and NOT nep2nes right now! I'm not her darnit!
[color=red:1e73056cb4:1c6dcb166f]Bloody fuck... ...You are neppy... you talk exactly like neppy... you use the same silly emoticons in the same way that neppy uses them... It is funny that you just started posting at the start of the neppy controversy and tried to set yourself up as a newbie... so, I will not believe that you are anyone other than neppy. Bye for now, neppy. SUPERJOINT RITUAL - http://www.superjointritual.com
A Lethal Dose of American Hatred | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
wellbeyond said: yamomma said: I wish everyone had that attitude.
I've seen some people get a little too hostile around here over opinion. Me, too...my problem, though, is that I get frustrated not by someone's opinion, but if the logic they use to form it is flawed...lol...if the logic is good, though (like IceNine's), it's amazingly easy to get caught up inside a civil debate like this... We need to keep having these discussions... they are fun! The only problem is that I post from work and I am terribly busy, so my arguments are not even nearly as good as they would normally be... but that's cool. SUPERJOINT RITUAL - http://www.superjointritual.com
A Lethal Dose of American Hatred | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Will you two just make-out and be done with it?!?!?!?
Wellbeyond  IceNine-------------------------------------------------
Something new for your ears and soul. http://artists.mp3s.com/a...dadli.html | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
feltbluish said: Will you two just make-out and be done with it?!?!?!?
Wellbeyond IceNineWhaddya wanna make it a threesome or something? :LOL: Don't feel left out, my friend... you can eat the toast. SUPERJOINT RITUAL - http://www.superjointritual.com
A Lethal Dose of American Hatred | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
IceNine said: wellbeyond said: Damn, Ice, no wonder you have 7,000 posts already..heh..lol 8)
Kidding aside, though...I just think it boils down to this: 1) There seems to be some sort of "order" to the universe... 2) From what we can percieve thru scientific observation, the existence of carbon-based lifeforms on this particular planet is at least one result of that order... From those two things, it has come to pass that believing in a purposeful design to everything that surrounds us can be based on far more than just "myths and stories" still lingering around from when we knew nothing of our universe...considering all the scientific "evidence" out there, probably the best thing any one person can say to another is "I don't agree with what you believe...but I do think you have a sound, valid reason for believing it"...I don't think that gets said enough when it comes to this topic, from either side... That is the beauty of our discussion... neither of us has called the other one an asshole or an idiot and we have not called each other's ideas nonsense. We are having a solid debate and it is quite fun! This is the best way to go about these things... it certainly would not have gone like that if one of us had said "you are so fucking stupid" or something like that. Damn, I love debating with intelligent and thoughtful people! This is one of the great threads of the org. Well done guys.
Nepy tried her best to fuck it up with her skewed nonsense but couldnt succeed. I quietly stepped out of the arguement as Ice makes them far better than me and there's no way I'm going to tangle with wellbeyond. I'd end up not knowing my arsehole from my armpit...lol. When I read about the evils of drinking, I gave up reading. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
