Evolution & Creationism are both right!

[Drool111]

Maybe. ;)

I haven't ever given much thought to the subject at all, in fact I don't care for it at all. How ever, I was doing a shit today ( as you may remember, see here: http://forums.darkfallonline.com/showthread.php?t=216952) and I thought, couldn't have God created the basics, and then we evolved from that? and, will this spark a discussion on Forumfall?

Discuss.

[Neramis]

God cannot logically exist, a square circle if you will. Sentience without matter, etc etc

[Badem]

god is the creation of people who need to believe in a higher power, I believe we came from microbes and evolved, a fortunate by product of the meteor that wiped out the dinosaurs and created the conditions that allowed us to first come into existance.

Since then Evolution has developed us into the parasites we are today

yes we are parasites, we latch onto a body (earth) and consume everything we want from it with no consideration for the repercussions of our actions

Eventually the world will rid itself of us and the cycle will begin anew, all we can hope is by the time that happens we have already moved on to off world colonies from earth

[Sqarak]

Maybe. ;)

I haven't ever given much thought to the subject at all, in fact I don't care for it at all. How ever, I was doing a shit today ( as you may remember, see here: http://forums.darkfallonline.com/showthread.php?t=216952) and I thought, couldn't have God created the basics, and then we evolved from that? and, will this spark a discussion on Forumfall?

Discuss.

Drool111, you fail to understand the reasoning behind Creationists. Scientists who happen to be religious are perfectly happy to separate God on the spiritual level from science on the physical level. Some might even go as far as reasoning that god is the overal relation between all things that exist.

Creationists however don't care about science. They don't care about being wrong or right. They don't care about study, research and discovery. To them everything has already been said in the Bible and everything is as Bible says it is.

Creationism can never be right, because it cannot be wrong. It's an absolute value and will remain an absolute one, no matter how much data you add or subtract from it. Creationism just is. It's just like we say that the letter A is an A.
Evolution however is a variable. It can be proven wrong or right by adding or subtracting data.
Absolute values can never be equal to variable values.
Variables are part of science. Absolutes are part of dogma.

Dogma and science should never even come close to each other, it'll only lead to misery and a stagnation of our increase in knowledge.

Why is this so hard for some people to understand?

[Neramis]

Drool111, you fail to understand the reasoning behind Creationists. Scientists who happen to be religious are perfectly happy to separate God on the spiritual level from science on the physical level. Some might even go as far as reasoning that god is the overal relation between all things that exist.

Creationists however don't care about science. They don't care about being wrong or right. They don't care about study, research and discovery. To them everything has already been said in the Bible and everything is as Bible says it is.

Creationism can never be right, because it cannot be wrong. It's an absolute value and will remain an absolute one, no matter how much data you add or subtract from it. Creationism just is. It's just like we say that the letter A is an A.
Evolution however is a variable. It can be proven wrong or right by adding or subtracting data.
Absolute values can never be equal to variable values.
Variables are part of science. Absolutes are part of dogma.

Dogma and science should never even come close to each other, it'll only lead to misery and a stagnation of our increase in knowledge.

Why is this so hard for some people to understand?

The problem is is that the "dogma" people control the schools, and the nukes.

[Nunz]

Evolution is God. And vice-versa.


I'm a Deist.

[Nunz]

god is the creation of people who need to believe in a higher power, I believe we came from microbes and evolved, a fortunate by product of the meteor that wiped out the dinosaurs and created the conditions that allowed us to first come into existance.

Since then Evolution has developed us into the parasites we are today

yes we are parasites, we latch onto a body (earth) and consume everything we want from it with no consideration for the repercussions of our actions

Eventually the world will rid itself of us and the cycle will begin anew, all we can hope is by the time that happens we have already moved on to off world colonies from earth

This is so flawed.

[Badem]

Drool111, you fail to understand the reasoning behind Creationists. Scientists who happen to be religious are perfectly happy to separate God on the spiritual level from science on the physical level. Some might even go as far as reasoning that god is the overal relation between all things that exist.

Creationists however don't care about science. They don't care about being wrong or right. They don't care about study, research and discovery. To them everything has already been said in the Bible and everything is as Bible says it is.

Creationism can never be right, because it cannot be wrong. It's an absolute value and will remain an absolute one, no matter how much data you add or subtract from it. Creationism just is. It's just like we say that the letter A is an A.
Evolution however is a variable. It can be proven wrong or right by adding or subtracting data.
Absolute values can never be equal to variable values.
Variables are part of science. Absolutes are part of dogma.

Dogma and science should never even come close to each other, it'll only lead to misery and a stagnation of our increase in knowledge.

Why is this so hard for some people to understand?

Nicely said Sqarak

damn it it feels wrong saying that

DIAF

[Nunz]

Drool111, you fail to understand the reasoning behind Creationists. Scientists who happen to be religious are perfectly happy to separate God on the spiritual level from science on the physical level. Some might even go as far as reasoning that god is the overal relation between all things that exist.

Creationists however don't care about science. They don't care about being wrong or right. They don't care about study, research and discovery. To them everything has already been said in the Bible and everything is as Bible says it is.

Creationism can never be right, because it cannot be wrong. It's an absolute value and will remain an absolute one, no matter how much data you add or subtract from it. Creationism just is. It's just like we say that the letter A is an A.
Evolution however is a variable. It can be proven wrong or right by adding or subtracting data.
Absolute values can never be equal to variable values.
Variables are part of science. Absolutes are part of dogma.

Dogma and science should never even come close to each other, it'll only lead to misery and a stagnation of our increase in knowledge.

Why is this so hard for some people to understand?
Very well put, I agree.

[Honorius]

There's one thing I always like to say when people debate that Science and Religion can't coexsist. Science and Religion both have the same absolute, light.

[Bissen]

Imagination land clearly disproved the creationism theory.

[[LoD] EE]

Maybe. ;)

.

No.

[Gloomrender]

Maybe. ;)

I haven't ever given much thought to the subject at all

Obviously. Creationism and science are totally incompatible.

[CyanIdesOfMarch]

Drool111, you fail to understand the reasoning behind Creationists. Scientists who happen to be religious are perfectly happy to separate God on the spiritual level from science on the physical level. Some might even go as far as reasoning that god is the overal relation between all things that exist.

Creationists however don't care about science. They don't care about being wrong or right. They don't care about study, research and discovery. To them everything has already been said in the Bible and everything is as Bible says it is.

Creationism can never be right, because it cannot be wrong. It's an absolute value and will remain an absolute one, no matter how much data you add or subtract from it. Creationism just is. It's just like we say that the letter A is an A.
Evolution however is a variable. It can be proven wrong or right by adding or subtracting data.
Absolute values can never be equal to variable values.
Variables are part of science. Absolutes are part of dogma.

Dogma and science should never even come close to each other, it'll only lead to misery and a stagnation of our increase in knowledge.

Why is this so hard for some people to understand?

Well said.

Creationist aren't trying to make sense, logic even applied to their fairy tale would distort their version of events as they have believed for so long. They are simply trying to put something out that gives them a base to fight evolution since the very concept destroys the very foundation of their believe system, creationism seeks to repair that destruction by discrediting the argument altogether.

[wertyn]

i agree with this statement

[ZeroCool]

I always wondered what kind of evidence people wanted to prove to them there was a Creator.

Science, which deals with the study of matter and its interactions, is in a completely different realm of thought than the concept of a creator. Do you want God to pop out and say "here i am, watch this sh**" to finally prove to you he/she/it exists? How can you test matter to determine whether or not there is a God?

Use science to prove that killing people is wrong. Use science to prove that i shouldn't run around naked. You cant, why? Because your using the wrong method. You must use ethics to justify this, the same way you must use philosophy to justify there is a God. .You must use the right method to prove different things. I don't think its crazy to say there is a God, why? Because when i look at my body i see a complex creation. Experience and life is unique and non material. Simple as that. If our physical self is the work of evolution, fucking woot who cares? Shows how clever our creator can be.

Atheists are equally as retarded as the dogmatic.

[Sqarak]

Atheists are equally as retarded as the dogmatic.

That's some nice dogmatism and generalisation in one big fat juice wrapper.

Let me guess, 2 cent per ounce for such opinions?

[ZeroCool]

That's some nice dogmatism and generalisation in one big fat juice wrapper.

Let me guess, 2 cent per ounce for such opinions?

People like you are awesome. They comment on something that doesnt really have anything to do with the point at hand to change the subject.

Try commenting on the body of text above what you only read.

[Crazy Hermit]

i agree with this statement

I disagree with your statement, and now state all who agree with your statement are stupid and all who agree with mine are smart.

[CyanIdesOfMarch]

I always wondered what kind of evidence people wanted to prove to them there was a Creator.

Science, which deals with the study of matter and its interactions, is in a completely different realm of thought than the concept of a creator. Do you want God to pop out and say "here i am, watch this sh**" to finally prove to you he/she/it exists? How can you test matter to determine whether or not there is a God?

Use science to prove that killing people is wrong. Use science to prove that i shouldn't run around naked. You cant, why? Because your using the wrong method. You must use ethics to justify this, the same way you must use philosophy to justify there is a God. .You must use the right method to prove different things. I don't think its crazy to say there is a God, why? Because when i look at my body i see a complex creation. Experience and life is unique and non material. Simple as that. If our physical self is the work of evolution, fucking woot who cares? Shows how clever our creator can be.

Atheists are equally as retarded as the dogmatic.

Did you laugh at yourself when you wrote this? You need philosophy, which basically can be summed up as "imagination" to determine rather there is a God or not?

I've never been one to say there could not be a god, but I have always denounced religion. There is no Christian god and you can use Science and a load of other fields of study + logic to combat that.

How is an atheist "as retarded" as people who swallow dogmatism? An atheist denies that which has not been proven while a dogmatic accepts that which has no logic, yet because an atheist does not believe you when you tell him your fairy tale is the truth, he is retarded?

[Sqarak]

People like you are awesome. They comment on something that doesnt really have anything to do with the point at hand to change the subject.

Try commenting on the body of text above what you only read.

Hey, I'm tired and was looking for a cheap jab.
Don't be so sensitive.

[PirateGlen]

That's some nice dogmatism and generalisation in one big fat juice wrapper.

Let me guess, 2 cent per ounce for such opinions?

If you claim to know that God(s) do not exist without evidence you fall into the same fallacy as having a claim to know that God(s) do exist.

It would help to note that the word atheist includes both agnostic atheists, AND atheists who make a claim to the nonexistence of God(s).

[ZeroCool]

Did you laugh at yourself when you wrote this? You need philosophy, which basically can be summed up as "imagination" to determine rather there is a God or not?

I've never been one to say there could not be a god, but I have always denounced religion. There is no Christian god and you can use Science and a load of other fields of study + logic to combat that.

How is an atheist "as retarded" as people who swallow dogmatism? An atheist denies that which has not been proven while a dogmatic accepts that which has no logic, yet because an atheist does not believe you when you tell him your fairy tale is the truth, he is retarded?

Philosophy is imagination? Did you laugh when you wrote that? You obviously have no concept of what it is then. Then killing people and running around naked is just fine, because it being wrong is just "imagination" lol. Every great thinker was deep into philosophy because it is the core of human knowledge.

Like i said, many things we know to be common sense are not proven, because you must use a different METHOD to prove these tings. Not all methods are scientific, the atheist cannot get this through his head. Science is the study of matter and its interactions There are many other methods we use to prove things. And there is not one thing in this universe more complicated, beautiful, and symmetric than the human body, and for someone to say that this is the product of a superior intelligence is justified. A dogmatic version of a creator and a philosophical version of a creator are two very very different things, and you need to be more familiar with the latter.

[Strangia]

Did you laugh at yourself when you wrote this? You need philosophy, which basically can be summed up as "imagination" to determine rather there is a God or not?

I've never been one to say there could not be a god, but I have always denounced religion. There is no Christian god and you can use Science and a load of other fields of study + logic to combat that.

How is an atheist "as retarded" as people who swallow dogmatism? An atheist denies that which has not been proven while a dogmatic accepts that which has no logic, yet because an atheist does not believe you when you tell him your fairy tale is the truth, he is retarded?

Okay, I'll break it down for both sides of the argument.

Science=all things dealing with phenomena within the universe we live. It only extends to the universe. Only the universe. Not outside the universe. This also means that science is only applicable to all events happening after the big bang. Only after the big bang. Not before the big bang. Science also only extends to the phenomena themselves, not to the purpose behind them. Science can't explain why humans are here, why water is wet, why electromagnetism is a force, or why the universe was created.
Science can explain the principals behind these phenomena, though, and that is science's purpose.

Theology/Philosophy=all things dealing with the metaphysical, that which can't be observed directly or indirectly. It deals with the "why", not the "how". Science can explain how a person dies, but philosophy attempts to explain "why" a person dies. Science can explain how humanity came to be, but philosophy attempts to explain why we are here, and what our purpose is. Similarly, philosophy, as it deals with the metaphysical, deals with what happens outside of our universe.
Philosophy and theology are two sides of the same coin, in that both deal with the metaphysical world. Again, both deal with non observable subjects.

So remember kids, when having religious arguments, don't sound like a douchebag and say "science proves god doesn't exist", and similarly, don't say "religion proves parts of science are wrong".

[PirateGlen]

Philosophy is imagination? Did you laugh when you wrote that? You obviously have no concept of what it is then. Then killing people and running around naked is just fine, because it being wrong is just "imagination" lol. Every great thinker was deep into philosophy because it is the core of human knowledge.

Like i said, many things we know to be common sense are not proven, because you must use a different METHOD to prove these tings. Not all methods are scientific, the atheist cannot get this through his head. Science is the study of matter and its interactions There are many other methods we use to prove things. And there is not one thing in this universe more complicated, beautiful, and symmetric than the human body, and for someone to say that this is the product of a superior intelligence is justified. A dogmatic version of a creator and a philosophical version of a creator are two very very different things, and you need to be more familiar with the latter.

What is the justification for asserting that humans are a product of superior intelligence?

(not that I believe you when you say there's nothing more complicated, beautiful, or symmetrical than humans)

[Ungraylessness]

Life is meaningless

[Ungraylessness]

It's useless to post.

[Reckun]

god is the creation of people who need to believe in a higher power, I believe we came from microbes and evolved, a fortunate by product of the meteor that wiped out the dinosaurs and created the conditions that allowed us to first come into existance.

Since then Evolution has developed us into the parasites we are today

yes we are parasites, we latch onto a body (earth) and consume everything we want from it with no consideration for the repercussions of our actions

Eventually the world will rid itself of us and the cycle will begin anew, all we can hope is by the time that happens we have already moved on to off world colonies from earth

by your logic alot of other animals would be seen as parasites as well

Just to give you an example back in pre-historic man, we werent parasites we were in the cycle as most creatures were but I believe you are referring to modern humankind

[CyanIdesOfMarch]

Okay, I'll break it down for both sides of the argument.

Science=all things dealing with phenomena within the universe we live. It only extends to the universe. Only the universe. Not outside the universe. This also means that science is only applicable to all events happening after the big bang. Only after the big bang. Not before the big bang. Science also only extends to the phenomena themselves, not to the purpose behind them. Science can't explain why humans are here, why water is wet, why electromagnetism is a force, or why the universe was created.
Science can explain the principals behind these phenomena, though, and that is science's purpose.

Theology/Philosophy=all things dealing with the metaphysical, that which can't be observed directly or indirectly. It deals with the "why", not the "how". Science can explain how a person dies, but philosophy attempts to explain "why" a person dies. Science can explain how humanity came to be, but philosophy attempts to explain why we are here, and what our purpose is. Similarly, philosophy, as it deals with the metaphysical, deals with what happens outside of our universe.
Philosophy and theology are two sides of the same coin, in that both deal with the metaphysical world. Again, both deal with non observable subjects.

So remember kids, when having religious arguments, don't sound like a douchebag and say "science proves god doesn't exist", and similarly, don't say "religion proves parts of science are wrong".

I extremely clearly said I science did not prove God did not exist. It proves Religion is incorrect at the very least historically. God could exist, no way of knowing one way or the other at this point in human history but the multitude of fairy tales out there today are nothing more than that, they fall under the category of "False until proven". The concept of a creator, "God", is still a possibility.

As for philosophy, I've learned a lot of philosophy, the great thinkers of our past, the creation theories and every single one of them boils down to some unexplainable "This is how I see the universe". It is imagination when you take a step back and look at it, there is nothing to base it on other than that of the mind and therefor it is nothing but very deep thinking.

You don't think we can back travel far enough with science to eventually discover what created us? I'd sooner believe that than jump on the notion that some magical force did it for an unknowable reason. Again, I feel I need to reiterate myself, religion is what I have a problem with, the people who feel they know who or what "God" is and that can not not exist. That kind of blind faith I have no tolerance for.

For the record, I'm an agnostic atheist.

EDIT: Nothing more beautiful than the human body? That seems a rather bold statement to make. We are little more than overgrown apes, more than half the population lacks the mental capacity to even think for themselves and you see the human race as impressive? Logic never hurts to try, you may have to drop a few of your fanciful new-age "we are the image of the divine" crap, but you might take solace in the simpleness of it all.

Or maybe I haven't smoked enough weed or dropped enough acid to understand the validity of this "philosophy" in which you think is so important, so different from imagination. Your analogy to ethics was very weak, btw, obviously justice and morals can be explained through biological science as well as psychology.

[Empty Pockets]

God and science cannot coexist.

An "intelligent designer" would, by definition, have abilities that lie outside those in the natural world. Any entity free to violate the laws of physics and the principles of the universe would, through his existance, discredit the entire scientific model, and scientists would have little more ability than, say, artists, in investigating nature, as the scientific principles need not apply to any question in a universe ruled by such an entity

In other words, by throwing out the laws of physics, 2+2 could very well equal 5, there is no absolute truth, no realty, no certainity in anything. No certainty, no science.

so pick one or the other, but you can't have both.

besides, what sort of sadistic fuck of a god would allow us to evolve over billions of years of death, killing, disease, pain, and fear, if you're going to pick religion, no reason to demonize your own diety by trying to fit him into science when there's no room for him there, anyway.

[Nunz]

I extremely clearly said I science did not prove God did not exist. It proves Religion is incorrect at the very least historically. God could exist, no way of knowing one way or the other at this point in human history but the multitude of fairy tales out there today are nothing more than that, they fall under the category of "False until proven". The concept of a creator, "God", is still a possibility.

As for philosophy, I've learned a lot of philosophy, the great thinkers of our past, the creation theories and every single one of them boils down to some unexplainable "This is how I see the universe". It is imagination when you take a step back and look at it, there is nothing to base it on other than that of the mind and therefor it is nothing but very deep thinking.

You don't think we can back travel far enough with science to eventually discover what created us? I'd sooner believe that than jump on the notion that some magical force did it for an unknowable reason. Again, I feel I need to reiterate myself, religion is what I have a problem with, the people who feel they know who or what "God" is and that can not not exist. That kind of blind faith I have no tolerance for.

For the record, I'm an agnostic atheist.

EDIT: Nothing more beautiful than the human body? That seems a rather bold statement to make. We are little more than overgrown apes, more than half the population lacks the mental capacity to even think for themselves and you see the human race as impressive? Logic never hurts to try, you may have to drop a few of your fanciful new-age "we are the image of the divine" crap, but you might take solace in the simpleness of it all.

Or maybe I haven't smoked enough weed or dropped enough acid to understand the validity of this "philosophy" in which you think is so important, so different from imagination. Your analogy to ethics was very weak, btw, obviously justice and morals can be explained through biological science as well as psychology.

You're umm..


You're just dumb.

[CyanIdesOfMarch]

You're umm..


You're just dumb.

Please explain what I said in the post that makes you feel that way.

[Haeso]

god is the creation of people who need to believe in a higher power, I believe we came from microbes and evolved, a fortunate by product of the meteor that wiped out the dinosaurs and created the conditions that allowed us to first come into existance.

Since then Evolution has developed us into the parasites we are today

yes we are parasites, we latch onto a body (earth) and consume everything we want from it with no consideration for the repercussions of our actions

Eventually the world will rid itself of us and the cycle will begin anew, all we can hope is by the time that happens we have already moved on to off world colonies from earth

Would you like some /wrists with that self loathing?

Drool111, you fail to understand the reasoning behind Creationists. Scientists who happen to be religious are perfectly happy to separate God on the spiritual level from science on the physical level. Some might even go as far as reasoning that god is the overal relation between all things that exist.

Creationists however don't care about science. They don't care about being wrong or right. They don't care about study, research and discovery. To them everything has already been said in the Bible and everything is as Bible says it is.

Creationism can never be right, because it cannot be wrong. It's an absolute value and will remain an absolute one, no matter how much data you add or subtract from it. Creationism just is. It's just like we say that the letter A is an A.
Evolution however is a variable. It can be proven wrong or right by adding or subtracting data.
Absolute values can never be equal to variable values.
Variables are part of science. Absolutes are part of dogma.

Dogma and science should never even come close to each other, it'll only lead to misery and a stagnation of our increase in knowledge.

Why is this so hard for some people to understand?

Every time I read one of your posts I start, and then once I notice your sig I start to think I should go watch V for Vendetta again.

[Nunz]

God and science cannot coexist.



In other words, by throwing out the laws of physics, 2+2 could very well equal 5, there is no absolute truth, no realty, no certainity in anything. No certainty, no science.

so pick one or the other, but you can't have both.

besides, what sort of sadistic fuck of a god would allow us to evolve over billions of years of death, killing, disease, pain, and fear, if you're going to pick religion, no reason to demonize your own diety by trying to fit him into science when there's no room for him there, anyway.
2+2=4 is God, Genius. At least for me.

[Nunz]

Please explain what I said in the post that makes you feel that way.

Your thread started off with stating that Science doesn't prove God doesn't exist only religion.

How does that make sense? Jesus did exist. Science has proven that. the bhagavad gita could have fallen from the sky. Maybe it was written by some man and tossed off a mountain then only to land at the feet of another man who proclaimed it to be the work of God.

For most religions the argument of Science is used to discredit their God. Which then in turn discredits their religion. You seemed to have completely missed that.


And as far as your pessimistic and cynical view of the human race.. As much as I understand where you are coming from.. Why don't we examine just how different we are than other animals on this planet.

Name another animal that had the analytical mind to debate whether what they are thinking and how they are acting is learned through thousands, or even millions of years of progress or if what they are doing is because they have chosen to do this. Or both?

You even say were little more than overgrown apes! Really? The irony of it astounds me. What can you place above apes and humans with your thinking? And don't say dolphins...

[Haeso]

You even say were little more than overgrown apes! Really? The irony of it astounds me. What can you place above apes and humans with your thinking? And don't say dolphins...

Flipper is clearly superior.

[Nunz]

Flipper is clearly superior.

Mr. Ed, imo

[CyanIdesOfMarch]

Your thread started off with stating that Science doesn't prove God doesn't exist only religion.

How does that make sense? Jesus did exist. Science has proven that. the bhagavad gita could have fallen from the sky. Maybe it was written by some man and tossed off a mountain then only to land at the feet of another man who proclaimed it to be the work of God.

For most religions the argument of Science is used to discredit their God. Which then in turn discredits their religion. You seemed to have completely missed that.


And as far as your pessimistic and cynical view of the human race.. As much as I understand where you are coming from.. Why don't we examine just how different we are than other animals on this planet.

Name another animal that had the analytical mind to debate whether what they are thinking and how they are acting is learned through thousands, or even millions of years of progress or if what they are doing is because they have chosen to do this. Or both?

Wow, ok let me educate you kid.

For one, Jesus has NEVER been proven to exist by any means what so ever. There is absolutely NOTHING that PROVES he was ever a real person. Circumstantial evidence suggest someone like him was walking around preaching a doomsday message similar to that of the Jewish sect of the Essenes, but it is entirely possible that Jesus was a completely fictional character or at the very, very least embellished with all this "Jesus" character's actions and messages written after his supposed death. It may enlighten you to know that nothing was written by him or about him until a generation after his death.

Science can not be used to discredit the concept of a "Creator" because there is absolutely no way to test it, at least not yet. Science is used to discredit the events in which religions insist happened to create our world or state of being, such as Adam & Eve, Noah's Arc, the 6000 year old Earth idea, the validity of the bible's origins, the list goes on. These are all things in good company that have been proven false by science and not aimed at discrediting the concept of a Divine Being. They discredit the fairy tales, the myths used to influence and control people though complete fabrications so excuse me when I say I think it is you who has missed the entire point.

I do have a pessimistic view of the human race, you just called me stupid without leaving any reason as to why you thought that and then when you did give your reasoning you claimed that Jesus had proven to exist when that is just completely wrong. That is part of the stupidity I witness on a daily basis and it really irritates me when ignorance begets knowledge, and it does on a daily basis over and over again. Of course we have some incredible advantages over animals, but in the grand scheme of things we are still mortals, we are still extremely primitive and very, very far from perfect, which seems to be something Zero thinks we resemble.

EDIT: What would be above Humans? A being that was not driven by emotions, wasn't so easily manipulated by other like beings, didn't die so quickly, something closer to actual divinity is what I'm getting at. Right now, as I see it, we are just the most advanced animal on the planet.

[SSguy]

Maybe. ;)

I haven't ever given much thought to the subject at all, in fact I don't care for it at all. How ever, I was doing a shit today ( as you may remember, see here: http://forums.darkfallonline.com/showthread.php?t=216952) and I thought, couldn't have God created the basics, and then we evolved from that? and, will this spark a discussion on Forumfall?

Discuss.

You are a fucking idiot. We all know the flying spaghetti monster created the basics.

[Haeso]

You are a fucking idiot. We all know the flying spaghetti monster created the basics.

The one true God.

[Nunz]

Wow, ok let me educate you kid.

For one, Jesus has NEVER been proven to exist by any means what so ever. There is absolutely NOTHING that PROVES he was ever a real person. Circumstantial evidence suggest someone like him was walking around preaching a doomsday message similar to that of the Jewish sect of the Essenes, but it is entirely possible that Jesus was a completely fictional character or at the very, very least embellished with all this "Jesus" character's actions and messages written after his supposed death. It may enlighten you to know that nothing was written by him or about him until a generation after his death.

Science can not be used to discredit the concept of a "Creator" because there is absolutely no way to test it, at least not yet. Science is used to discredit the events in which religions insist happened to create our world or state of being, such as Adam & Eve, Noah's Arc, the 6000 year old Earth idea, the validity of the bible's origins, the list goes on. These are all things in good company that have been proven false by science and not aimed at discrediting the concept of a Divine Being. They discredit the fairy tales, the myths used to influence and control people though complete fabrications so excuse me when I say I think it is you who has missed the entire point.

I do have a pessimistic view of the human race, you just called me stupid without leaving any reason as to why you thought that and then when you did give your reasoning you claimed that Jesus had proven to exist when that is just completely wrong. That is part of the stupidity I witness on a daily basis and it really irritates me when ignorance begets knowledge, and it does on a daily basis over and over again. Of course we have some incredible advantages over animals, but in the grand scheme of things we are still mortals, we are still extremely primitive and very, very far from perfect, which seems to be something Zero thinks we resemble.

EDIT: What would be above Humans? A being that was not driven by emotions, wasn't so easily manipulated by other like beings, didn't die so quickly, something closer to actual divinity is what I'm getting at. Right now, as I see it, we are just the most advanced animal on the planet.What would be above Humans? A being that was not driven by emotions, wasn't so easily manipulated by other like beings, didn't die so quickly, something closer to actual divinity is what I'm getting at. Right now, as I see it, we are just the most advanced animal on the planet.

Do you need to see Jesus himself before believing that he existed? What am I saying, you're an atheist...

Jesus, the man, is believed to have existed by many scientists and scholars. Can they say that with 100% certainty? Of course not. They're Scientists.

You also seem to be confusing and picking your thoughts from a lot of different sources, . Especially when you talk about Jesus. You don't seem to seperate the religious icon with the man himself. For this thread, it seems like we kind of have to or we're left never really making our point.


It's funny the way you talk about philosophy also. You seem to state it as not a big deal... but then many of your talking points are less 'to the point' and more dreamy, more "imaginative".

Like how Science can't discredit a creator. Well, what do you mean by creator? And what did he create that some scientist and philosophers haven't tried to prove he did not?

And making the attempt at arguing that Science can't disprove a creator because Science can't prove a creator?

Really?

Maybe you just don't feel like putting in the effort but it seems like you're a coffeeshop-philosophical to me. Hell, even a coffeeshop-dogmatic-atheist if you really want to go there.


Edit to your edit: So you're saying that a supreme being would be above humans? Something omnipotent and all knowing?

yaaaa...

[Crazy Hermit]

The one true God.

Hell no. Cornwallis is the true god.

[Nunz]

Wow

Listen, I appreciate that you've thought about these things and I can tell it interests you. I Especially appreciate that you haven't spoken things that come right out of 'Atheism For Dummies" guid but I don't think you've put your heart or head into really delving into these subjects.

BUT.. I, from reading what you had to say, I think with a little more thought, some books and some practice you could begin to speak with a little more authority on topics like this.

[CyanIdesOfMarch]

Do you need to see Jesus himself before believing that he existed? What am I saying, you're an atheist...

Jesus, the man, is believed to have existed by many scientists and scholars. Can they say that with 100% certainty? Of course not. They're Scientists.

You also seem to be confusing and picking your thoughts from a lot of different sources, . Especially when you talk about Jesus. You don't seem to seperate the religious icon with the man himself. For this thread, it seems like we kind of have to or we're left never really making our point.


It's funny the way you talk about philosophy also. You seem to state it as not a big deal... but then many of your talking points are less 'to the point' and more dreamy, more "imaginative".

Like how Science can't discredit a creator. Well, what do you mean by creator? And what did he create that some scientist and philosophers haven't tried to prove he did not?

And making the attempt at arguing that Science can't disprove a creator because Science can't prove a creator?

Really?

Maybe you just don't feel like putting in the effort but it seems like you're a coffeeshop-philosophical to me. Hell, even a coffeeshop-dogmatic-atheist if you really want to go there.

You spoke of Jesus as a man first, I merely addressed it. Rather he was real or not is rather beside the point but I can't just sit here and have someone call me dumb while insisting that science proved his existence. Your illusive "Scientist who believe he existed" is irrelevant, I don't see any proof of that and even if it were so, what does it matter without any proof behind it? Besides that, I do think he or someone like him probably existed, but I wouldn't go as far to say that it was proven that he had.

By Creator I mean a divine being that had the means to exist before the universe and the ability to create it out of nothing. A being without a beginning, but then again you could interchange the word "Creator" with the word "Universe" and it would all be the same to me, there's no reason to go into the idea because it is all based on philosophy and questions you can't know the answer to.


And making the attempt at arguing that Science can't disprove a creator because Science can't prove a creator?


Not exactly, I'm making the argument that no one can have any valid opinion on the origins of the universe because we are far behind that knowledge, any talk about it is pure speculation. I'd be interested in hearing your opinion rather than hearing you try to bash me for basing my beliefs on what we know we know and not taking in what we can't learn.

[Nunz]

Alright, my bad. You were probably just a little defensive because of what I had said.

[Nunz]

Not exactly, I'm making the argument that no one can have any valid opinion on the origins of the universe because we are far behind that knowledge, any talk about it is pure speculation. I'd be interested in hearing your opinion rather than hearing you try to bash me for basing my beliefs on what we know we know and not taking in what we can't learn.

Lets use the Christian God for sake of argument.


Is that why you don't believe in God? Because we can't know, unless we've witnessed it ourselves, or it has been very well documented that an event in our collective past took place?

[Nunz]

And what do we really "know".

Can we say that if two things accure with exact variables that the exact same answer would appear again? Because if we can't then we know nothing. We're only experiencing. Never to know.

real quick, man falls off roof... twice. Same clothes weight.. everything exactly the same. All the planets are line exactly the same.

Would he injure himself the same way both times?

[CyanIdesOfMarch]

Lets use the Christian God for sake of argument.


Is that why you don't believe in God? Because we can't know, unless we've witnessed it ourselves, or it has been very well documented that an event in our collective past took place?

I know the Christian's origins much better than any other so Christianity is obviously the most absurd to me just because I can cite more examples of their obvious manuvering and manipulation. Other than that, it is incredibly illogical and I have this crazy thing against devoting my life to a god that doesn't make sense to me or to traditions and beliefs that seem backwards.

I could go on all day about why I don't believe in the Christian God, there are just too many reasons to count ranging all the way from logical fallacies to an incredibly ugly and fake history of the Catholic Church and it's offspring if you will.


And what do we really "know".

Can we say that if two things accure with exact variables that the exact same answer would appear again? Because if we can't then we know nothing. We're only experiencing. Never to know.

real quick, man falls off roof... twice. Same clothes weight.. everything exactly the same. All the planets are line exactly the same.

Would he injure himself the same way both times?


True, it is hard to tell what the real truth behind everything is, but even at the most basic level, Christianity is just a card in a hat along with every single other religion, theory, or philosophy spawned since the dawn of man.

[Nunz]

Wouldn't, at its most basic, religion and church being just a thing where people of like minds come together to help each other, share life experiences and create their own community without people that bring negativity into their lives?


Negativity being as simple as disagreements. Because these people would most likely agree on the same things most of the time.


I'm a Deist, by the way. I do believe in a God. I often 'know' when God has gifted me with something. God doesn't have an image or a face to me. And I don't go to any type of Church because I simply don't like many people and find comfort in my own beliefs enough that I find no need to praise them. God and I have our own relationship and that's okay with me.

But that doesn't mean that I don't believe the idea of churches and religions could be good. And that they do good. I think mostly it's man that twists and abuses its purpose.

[Rossco]

Creationism is wrong. Get over it.

[Nunz]

Creationism is wrong. Get over it.

Somewhere along the line something happened that created us. Or set up a path that we could be created and be living here in this moment.


Isn't that action, event or being our creator and or God?

[-Jotun]

Somewhere along the line something happened that created us. Or set up a path that we could be created and be living here in this moment.


Isn't that action, event or being our creator and or God?

you're fucking kidding, right?

[Nunz]

you're fucking kidding, right?

No. Not at all.

[CyanIdesOfMarch]

Somewhere along the line something happened that created us. Or set up a path that we could be created and be living here in this moment.


Isn't that action, event or being our creator and or God?

I don't know if I even believe that something had to create the universe. A large portion of people use the argument "The universe couldn't had to come from nothing so their must be a God". Well my obvious response to that is, what created God? Why couldn't the universe have no beginning?

As for our personal creation, I think random chance has a pretty good probability of being correct, more so than a divine being decided he wanted to make intelligent beings.

[-Jotun]

No. Not at all.

explain to me your reasoning for this illogical response.

you make no sense.

[Nunz]

I mean, I already stated my belief. I'm just here for the convo now. Be really easy to say "well my dad fucked my mom does that mean my God is fuck... and if I am made of my God does that make me the God of fucK?"

Im really just trying to entertain my self here at this point.

[Nunz]

I don't know if I even believe that something had to create the universe. A large portion of people use the argument "The universe couldn't had to come from nothing so their must be a God". Well my obvious response to that is, what created God? Why couldn't the universe have no beginning?

As for our personal creation, I think random chance has a pretty good probability of being correct, more so than a divine being decided he wanted to make intelligent beings.

No beginning and no end. Consists of everything.. Which in turn consists of nothing. Since if something just is... then it just isn't. It doesn't exist because it never began. It has no measurement. Time doesn't matter.


I don't know.

[-Jotun]

I mean, I already stated my belief. I'm just here for the convo now. Be really easy to say "well my dad fucked my mom does that mean my God is fuck... and if I am made of my God does that make me the God of fucK?"

Im really just trying to entertain my self here at this point.

well just say that you were trolling, because claiming you believe in god (lol) isn't trolling, it's just epic fail.

it's like being so uninformed that you think shit flows out of your mouth instead of your anus

[Nunz]

well just say that you were trolling, because claiming you believe in god (lol) isn't trolling, it's just epic fail.

it's like being so uninformed that you think shit flows out of your mouth instead of your anus

Dude, I believe in God.

Deism: Deism is the recognition of a universal creative force greater than that demonstrated by mankind, supported by personal observation of laws and designs in nature and the universe, perpetuated and validated by the innate ability of human reason coupled with the rejection of claims made by individuals and organized religions of having received special divine revelation.

[Sqarak]

"The universe couldn't had to come from nothing so their must be a God".

These kind of statements another proof of how people completely fail to distinguis the spiritual from the physical. It is also a proof of human arrogance.

First, it is wrong to suppose that because we do not know exactly how the universe is created that it then must be created from nothing.
People should really start realising that an lack of understanding is not proof of God's existence.

Secondly, it is fairly arrogant to asume that if the creation of the universe was anything but a divine creation we should have known by now. We are not yet that bright and that smart that we know everything that can be know. So please drop the misplaced arrogance, we have still a lot to learn and just stop giving "god" as an aswer to too difficult to comprehend questions.


Before our resident bible munchers go into a hysifit, I'm not advocating the non-existence of a god, I'm just pointing out that people say "because of god" a bit too often, too easily.

[kab112]

god is the creation of people who need to believe in a higher power, I believe we came from microbes and evolved, a fortunate by product of the meteor that wiped out the dinosaurs and created the conditions that allowed us to first come into existance.

Since then Evolution has developed us into the parasites we are today

yes we are parasites, we latch onto a body (earth) and consume everything we want from it with no consideration for the repercussions of our actions

Eventually the world will rid itself of us and the cycle will begin anew, all we can hope is by the time that happens we have already moved on to off world colonies from earth
What he said..
But I'm that pathetic that I need to believe in a higher power of some sorts, I agree with what Captain Picard said in episode 202: Where Silence Has Lease about death and afterlife.

Ps.That robot in The Matrix said that thing about the parasites.

[Badem]

The parasite analogy has been around a lot longer than the matrix


though if you believe one scientific reprot based one long distance scansinto space and the returning signals we could all be living in a massive holodeck simulator......

I mean WTF is that all about?????

[Sqarak]

though if you believe one scientific reprot based one long distance scansinto space and the returning signals we could all be living in a massive holodeck simulator......

I mean WTF is that all about?????

That's something along the lines of "Does the dreamer in a deep sleep dream during the dreamers deep sleep."

It's the philisophical question about what defines reality. As far as I know, a proper definition has yet to come.

[jonyak]

The parasite analogy has been around a lot longer than the matrix


though if you believe one scientific reprot based one long distance scansinto space and the returning signals we could all be living in a massive holodeck simulator......

I mean WTF is that all about?????

reality is a scam, one we all beleive so its true.

[Badem]

reality is a scam, one we all beleive so its true.

so when we die do we leave this false reality and go to teh real reality? are we really living in Star Ocean?

[Sqarak]

so when we die do we leave this false reality and go to teh real reality? are we really living in Star Ocean?

Maybe we are all part of someone's dream and the last of us to die will be the dreamer because he/ she woke up.

[jonyak]

so when we die do we leave this false reality and go to teh real reality? are we really living in Star Ocean?

we don't really die, we were never really alive. Our energy just transfers to its next state.

[Badem]

Maybe we are all part of someone's dream and the last of us to die will be the dreamer because he/ she woke up.

So basically if i go on a mad mission and kill every last living human on this planet I will awaken to teh real world?

Damn Hitler had the right idea

[Eldest]

God is/was an alien. You heard it here

[Fugean]

i believe it is possible that there is/was a bieng of some sort that might have created the first life on earth, or at least set things into motion to make it possible. however there is no way to know for sure. i do believe in evolution, but whos to say that evolution isnt a creation of something greater? again, no one can know for sure.

as far as the people saying that there can not be sentiance w/o existance in some sort of material body. how can you know this for sure as well? as far as the human mind can comprehend it is not possible, but there is again no way to know for sure. i belive that as we have evolved here on earth as a carbon based life form, there is the very real possibility that there are purely energy based life forms out there somewhere.

[kab112]

The parasite analogy has been around a lot longer than the matrix


though if you believe one scientific reprot based one long distance scansinto space and the returning signals we could all be living in a massive holodeck simulator......

I mean WTF is that all about?????

That's something along the lines of "Does the dreamer in a deep sleep dream during the dreamers deep sleep."

It's the philisophical question about what defines reality. As far as I know, a proper definition has yet to come.

reality is a scam, one we all beleive so its true.

so when we die do we leave this false reality and go to teh real reality? are we really living in Star Ocean?

Maybe we are all part of someone's dream and the last of us to die will be the dreamer because he/ she woke up.

we don't really die, we were never really alive. Our energy just transfers to its next state.

So basically if i go on a mad mission and kill every last living human on this planet I will awaken to teh real world?

Damn Hitler had the right idea

i believe it is possible that there is/was a bieng of some sort that might have created the first life on earth, or at least set things into motion to make it possible. however there is no way to know for sure. i do believe in evolution, but whos to say that evolution isnt a creation of something greater? again, no one can know for sure.

as far as the people saying that there can not be sentiance w/o existance in some sort of material body. how can you know this for sure as well? as far as the human mind can comprehend it is not possible, but there is again no way to know for sure. i belive that as we have evolved here on earth as a carbon based life form, there is the very real possibility that there are purely energy based life forms out there somewhere.

Cool.

[Empty Pockets]

2+2=4 is God, Genius. At least for me.

lol genius, what I said went right over your head.

If God is supernatural and can change things in the natural world, there is no point to science.

Science says there is a natural and logical explanation for everything, that in time and with the right information and knowledge, everything can be explained rationally according to the fundamental laws of the universe. But introduce a supernatural God that can break those universal laws into that equation, and you have to throw that concept out the window.

Hawaii has a really, really weird ecosystem. 800 species of ONE kind of fly, but not one single native reptile species. Science says there's a logical and quantifiable reason for that, because everything in the universe, without exception, has an explanation.

But Creationists, whenever faced with something that they can't understand using current scientific knowledge, instead of using the scientific method and doing research to find the reason, they jump automatically to the "god made it that way" conclusion. "God made Hawaii that way to prove evolution wrong!!"

boil that down, and it applies to FUCKING EVERYTHING. Gravity? Since God doesn't have to obey the rules, he may just be gluing us to the planet and we only think gravity exists. Time? Maybe we really haven't been here for billions of years (or thousands), maybe we were just willed into existance 5 minutes ago with a worn down planet and a bunch of false memories.

The only way we can quantify something is with the rules of nature. Nothing has to be quantified, nothing CAN be quantified, if something exists outside those laws, and like that quote said, in a universe with a supernatural diety, logic has no place because it has no relevance.

so either say everything is some manifestation of the laws of physics, or say that the laws of physics don't mean shit because God controls everything, but you can't have both. Evolutionist christians are just pussies clinging to their outdated belief system while trying to rationalize the irrational.

[ZeroCool]

I extremely clearly said I science did not prove God did not exist. It proves Religion is incorrect at the very least historically. God could exist, no way of knowing one way or the other at this point in human history but the multitude of fairy tales out there today are nothing more than that, they fall under the category of "False until proven". The concept of a creator, "God", is still a possibility.

As for philosophy, I've learned a lot of philosophy, the great thinkers of our past, the creation theories and every single one of them boils down to some unexplainable "This is how I see the universe". It is imagination when you take a step back and look at it, there is nothing to base it on other than that of the mind and therefor it is nothing but very deep thinking.

You don't think we can back travel far enough with science to eventually discover what created us? I'd sooner believe that than jump on the notion that some magical force did it for an unknowable reason. Again, I feel I need to reiterate myself, religion is what I have a problem with, the people who feel they know who or what "God" is and that can not not exist. That kind of blind faith I have no tolerance for.

For the record, I'm an agnostic atheist.

EDIT: Nothing more beautiful than the human body? That seems a rather bold statement to make. We are little more than overgrown apes, more than half the population lacks the mental capacity to even think for themselves and you see the human race as impressive? Logic never hurts to try, you may have to drop a few of your fanciful new-age "we are the image of the divine" crap, but you might take solace in the simpleness of it all.

Or maybe I haven't smoked enough weed or dropped enough acid to understand the validity of this "philosophy" in which you think is so important, so different from imagination. Your analogy to ethics was very weak, btw, obviously justice and morals can be explained through biological science as well as psychology.

Thank you for demeaning the entire human race. There is NOTHING more complex than ourselves, how our body works and how our brain functions. Im not commenting on the mental capacity of the general population, im commenting on our structure and how we function. And to say it is the product of nothing, or some "magical" unconscious force for no reason is the most ridiculous thing ive heard. I hate religion just as much as you, but you have to understand that the concept of a Creator was born out of philosophy, not religion

I'm sorry if all the great thinkers happened to be a theist in some form. Im sorry if Einstein, Newton, aristotle, plato, socrates, jung, emreson, plank, thoreau, shakespeare ect. ect. Believed that we were not the product of unconsciousness. You have no knowledge of what you speak of, and the atheist side has very little people that have impacted the world in any way.

Einstein was right when he said he rarely ever new a scientist that concerned himself with epistomology. The study of knowledge. You are so narrow that you still cannot make a constructive argument on my reasoning of you must use different methods to prove different things. Please explain how biological science and psycology can prove morals and ethics. Morals and ethics are a brach of philosophy, always have been and always will be.

And you still will not comment on my argument of you must use different methods to prove different things. You make bold statements such as "weak analogy" without giving me any reason to backup your attack. The scientific method is not the holy grail of proving everything that is true. I guess the entire body of philosophy, which is knowledge, is nothing. Thats what im hearing you say. And every great person to walk the face of this earth was a philosopher at heart. But you have convinced me that your obviously smarter and more knowledgeable on the subject than then /sarcasm.

You sir, completely demean the entire body of philosophical thinking, you demean knowledge at its core. Philosophy is no different than science, they are in different realms of knowledge. Science says, This is how matter interacts because we know this. Philosophy says "This is why this happens for this reason." They are two sides to one coin.

Therefore in the end, it appears to be every great thinker vs. a forumfaller. I wonder who will win.

Edit: Im waiting for someone to try and say Einstein didn't believe in a conscious God. Atheists love to misinterpret great minds.

[Crazy Hermit]

Thank you for demeaning the entire human race. There is NOTHING more complex than ourselves, how our body works and how our brain functions. Im not commenting on the mental capacity of the general population, im commenting on our structure and how we function. And to say it is the product of nothing, or some "magical" unconscious force for no reason is the most ridiculous thing ive heard. I hate religion just as much as you, but you have to understand that the concept of a Creator was born out of philosophy, not religion

I'm sorry if all the great thinkers happened to be a theist in some form. Im sorry if Einstein, Newton, aristotle, plato, socrates, jung, emreson, plank, thoreau, shakespeare ect. ect. Believed that we were not the product of unconsciousness. You have no knowledge of what you speak of, and the atheist side has very little people that have impacted the world in any way.

Einstein was right when he said he rarely ever new a scientist that concerned himself with epistomology. The study of knowledge. You are so narrow that you still cannot make a constructive argument on my reasoning of you must use different methods to prove different things. Please explain how biological science and psycology can prove morals and ethics. Morals and ethics are a brach of philosophy, always have been and always will be.

And you still will not comment on my argument of you must use different methods to prove different things. You make bold statements such as "weak analogy" without giving me any reason to backup your attack. The scientific method is not the holy grail of proving everything that is true. I guess the entire body of philosophy, which is knowledge, is nothing. Thats what im hearing you say. And every great person to walk the face of this earth was a philosopher at heart. But you have convinced me that your obviously smarter and more knowledgeable on the subject than then /sarcasm.

You sir, completely demean the entire body of philosophical thinking, you demean knowledge at its core. Philosophy is no different than science, they are in different realms of knowledge. Science says, This is how matter interacts because we know this. Philosophy says "This is why this happens for this reason." They are two sides to one coin.

Therefore in the end, it appears to be every great thinker vs. a forumfaller. I wonder who will win.

Edit: Im waiting for someone to try and say Einstein didn't believe in a conscious God. Atheists love to misinterpret great minds.

That leaves an even better question. Why is it that sometimes when you mess up, people say "Nice going, Einstien."

[ZeroCool]

Familiarize yourself with sarcasm

[Signus]

Maybe. ;)

I haven't ever given much thought to the subject at all, in fact I don't care for it at all. How ever, I was doing a shit today ( as you may remember, see here: http://forums.darkfallonline.com/showthread.php?t=216952) and I thought, couldn't have God created the basics, and then we evolved from that? and, will this spark a discussion on Forumfall?

Discuss.

This is the fundamental belief that our Founding Fathers had, deism. It's one of the hardest questions scientists have no real idea how to answer. The "why" of the universe. How these things came to be.

Scientifically you can track things back to the Big Bang, but where did the matter come from, the laws of the universe?

Some atheists will write off these vague questions and simply say "it's just science". Well, God may have a scientific explanation, and some scientists look for it, but far too many religious folk and "logical" folk get entrenched in this war of logic vs faith when the two could potentially be linked.

I myself believe in the deist clockmaker theory. Evolution could very well be a TOOL of creationism, and there are actually many people of faith who accept it as such, even a famous biologist that appeared on the Colbert Report said as much. God, or whoever, could have calculated just exactly how everything would come to pass based on the laws of this universe, and set things in motion to go down that path.

Some deists believe he just left the clock to run, others think he pops in now and again, makes little changes, we don't really know though. Which is why I find atheists so offensive, because there is no definitive way to know, yet they preach like they do know, and that their opinions are without fault. Overly religious folk do the same exact thing, but atheists bother me more because they act like religious nuts while criticizing religious nuts.


Oh, one last thing. I also find it funny that the logical folk criticize religious people for "picking and choosing" what to believe from the Bible, while at the same time, they pick and choose what scientific evidence to believe. Evidence of global warming? BS, the guy was a nutter. Recorded evidence of paranormal nature? The guy was a nutter. "There's no evidence for it!" "what about this?" "That was written by a crazy man, there's no evidence for it!"

[Empty Pockets]

I myself believe in the deist clockmaker theory. Evolution could very well be a TOOL of creationism, and there are actually many people of faith who accept it as such, even a famous biologist that appeared on the Colbert Report said as much. God, or whoever, could have calculated just exactly how everything would come to pass based on the laws of this universe, and set things in motion to go down that path.

Some deists believe he just left the clock to run, others think he pops in now and again, makes little changes, we don't really know though. Which is why I find atheists so offensive, because there is no definitive way to know, yet they preach like they do know, and that their opinions are without fault. Overly religious folk do the same exact thing, but atheists bother me more because they act like religious nuts while criticizing religious nuts.

What's the gain in believing in such a god?

[CyanIdesOfMarch]

Thank you for demeaning the entire human race. There is NOTHING more complex than ourselves, how our body works and how our brain functions. Im not commenting on the mental capacity of the general population, im commenting on our structure and how we function. And to say it is the product of nothing, or some "magical" unconscious force for no reason is the most ridiculous thing ive heard. I hate religion just as much as you, but you have to understand that the concept of a Creator was born out of philosophy, not religion


Nothing more complex than ourselves? You just assume that we are the only life force in the entire universe that has the ability to think and reason? I'm glad you are here to tell us there is no other beings in the universe than us and that we are the most advanced creation in existence, saves us a lot of trouble of trying to find the truth.


I'm sorry if all the great thinkers happened to be a theist in some form. Im sorry if Einstein, Newton, aristotle, plato, socrates, jung, emreson, plank, thoreau, shakespeare ect. ect. Believed that we were not the product of unconsciousness. You have no knowledge of what you speak of, and the atheist side has very little people that have impacted the world in any way.


Darwin (agnostic), Epicurus, Karl Marx, Mark Twain to name a few. Atheism is hard to pin to someone because most atheistic thinkers don't like to label themselves with such a narrow view. I myself find it hard to call myself "atheist" without attaching the word agnostic to the end to clarify my beliefs. The point is, not all the great thinkers happened to be theist in some form.


Einstein was right when he said he rarely ever new a scientist that concerned himself with epistomology. The study of knowledge. You are so narrow that you still cannot make a constructive argument on my reasoning of you must use different methods to prove different things. Please explain how biological science and psycology can prove morals and ethics. Morals and ethics are a brach of philosophy, always have been and always will be.


Ethics and morals stem from our biological programming built to keep our race from destroying ourselves. Where do you think morality came from? What exactly is philosophy as applied to the physical world? There must be some kind of physical presence that applies to us and creates the concept of morality. That physical presence is biology and biological psychology further affirms our programming as we learn more about it. We are at the tip of the iceberg of understanding the brain, we know very little of how it actually works but just as we understand how the heart works one day we will understand the brain and thus, we will understand morality in a real way.


And you still will not comment on my argument of you must use different methods to prove different things. You make bold statements such as "weak analogy" without giving me any reason to backup your attack. The scientific method is not the holy grail of proving everything that is true. I guess the entire body of philosophy, which is knowledge, is nothing. Thats what im hearing you say. And every great person to walk the face of this earth was a philosopher at heart. But you have convinced me that your obviously smarter and more knowledgeable on the subject than then /sarcasm.


Not every great person was a philosopher and the ones that were were also other things as well. Philosophy is a fine way to think about things but it is not a way to prove things, you want to use it as a tool to find God but it has no means of doing so. Science is the means in which you would implement proving your philosophy because without any sort of tool to do so you are simply thinking deeply and that is not the way to determine how the universe was created.


You sir, completely demean the entire body of philosophical thinking, you demean knowledge at its core. Philosophy is no different than science, they are in different realms of knowledge. Science says, This is how matter interacts because we know this. Philosophy says "This is why this happens for this reason." They are two sides to one coin.


Philosophy is much different than science. Science can be tested, philosophy can not. Science can determine things we did not know before and evaluate it's accuracy, philosophy can not. Why something happens is assuming we have more insight than we do, why something happens is not something that can be determined, all that can be determined is how something happens. I'm not here to debate something that can not possibly have a conceivable answer. Why must there be a God? In your own terms, do you believe philosophy could be the means in which you find that there isn't a god? Could it be the way you find that the universe simply exist, without needed a divine being to create it?


Therefore in the end, it appears to be every great thinker vs. a forumfaller. I wonder who will win.


I believe I have a great arsenal of brilliant minds at my side as well, you are just very misinformed in terms of history.

[Crulty]

I believe people could have super powers if they weren't bound to flesh and bones.

[ZeroCool]

1
nothing more complex than ourselves? You just assume that we are the only life force in the entire universe that has the ability to think and reason? I'm glad you are here to tell us there is no other beings in the universe than us and that we are the most advanced creation in existence, saves us a lot of trouble of trying to find the truth.

i never said we are alone. I said to our knowledge we are the most complex beings out there. Yes im sure there are other lifeforms out in the universe that are aswell complex. My whole point is that this extremely complex structure points to the presence of a creator. Every painting has a painter. It doesnt matter which tools are used to create.

darwin (agnostic), epicurus, karl marx, mark twain to name a few. Atheism is hard to pin to someone because most atheistic thinkers don't like to label themselves with such a narrow view. I myself find it hard to call myself "atheist" without attaching the word agnostic to the end to clarify my beliefs. The point is, not all the great thinkers happened to be theist in some form.

the father of communism and hukleberry finn? Please all the ones you named hardly hold a candle to even einstein


ethics and morals stem from our biological programming built to keep our race from destroying ourselves. Where do you think morality came from? What exactly is philosophy as applied to the physical world? There must be some kind of physical presence that applies to us and creates the concept of morality. That physical presence is biology and biological psychology further affirms our programming as we learn more about it. We are at the tip of the iceberg of understanding the brain, we know very little of how it actually works but just as we understand how the heart works one day we will understand the brain and thus, we will understand morality in a real way.

then why does our biological programming keep us from destroying ourselves? Not everything is a physical manifestation, not everything is material. If our biological processes are limited, and our imagination in infinite, how is that compatible?

not every great person was a philosopher and the ones that were were also other things as well. Philosophy is a fine way to think about things but it is not a way to prove things, you want to use it as a tool to find god but it has no means of doing so. Science is the means in which you would implement proving your philosophy because without any sort of tool to do so you are simply thinking deeply and that is not the way to determine how the universe was created.

actually everyone with a belief is a philosopher. Those who think deeply and use reason to convey their point are usually labeld as such. Not everything has to be completely 2+2=4 proven. Thats extremely linear and narrow. Philosophy, as i said, attemps to answer why. Your trying to state the the answer why will eventually be overcome by how. Why something happens can be determined by reason, which is thouroughly conversed by most philosophers. Reason is a hot topic in philosophy.

philosophy is much different than science. Science can be tested, philosophy can not. Science can determine things we did not know before and evaluate it's accuracy, philosophy can not. why something happens is assuming we have more insight than we do, why something happens is not something that can be determined, all that can be determined is how something happens. I'm not here to debate something that can not possibly have a conceivable answer. Why must there be a god? In your own terms, do you believe philosophy could be the means in which you find that there isn't a god? Could it be the way you find that the universe simply exist, without needed a divine being to create it?

Why can very much be determined. Why does the man goto work everyday? Why are we on forumfall arguing? Why does one do what they do? The answer comes from something called reason We are on forumfall arguing because we are (insert reason here). The man goes to work everyday because (insert reason here) one does what they do because (insert reason here). How can also be explained, it would be very complex, but it doesnt overthrow why. They could be two manifestations of the same things. Why are you constantly trying to replace the word why with how? They are two sides to the same coin. Reason is the answer to why. And with your arguments your trying to completely destroy reason and everything any philosopher worked for his entire life.

i believe i have a great arsenal of brilliant minds at my side as well, you are just very misinformed in terms of history.

yes a communist, one classical philosopher, and huckleberry finn is a great arsenal of great minds.

When it comes down to it, our argument now is either Why or How. Your saying how explains why, and im saying why explains how. Now were philosophizing.

[CyanIdesOfMarch]

1


When it comes down to it, our argument now is either Why or How. Your saying how explains why, and im saying why explains how. Now were philosophizing.

Even from a philosophical point of view we could come to the conclusion that the universe does not have a creator and it just is. There does not have to be a why.

I listed off a few atheist/agnostics off the top of my head, your stance on communism, evolution, genius works of literature are all completely irrelevant, I'm sorry you don't respect people whos opinions do not mirror your own. I even put in Epicurus who was a Greek Philosopher, figured you might take something from that but you seemed to miss it completely, oh well.

Your entire argument is based off some abstract concept of why which assumes there is a reason for everything while using philosophy to find that answer. The fatal flaw in your argument however is the fact that philosophy has no means of finding out anything. Please point out to me one time in which philosophy by itself has determined something complex without the assistance of something like science. To my knowledge it has never happened, you can't figure out why because there either is no reason or we are far too behind to know those reasons. But how would we figure out those reasons? By finding out the How first and by knowing How we find Why.

Why is the sky blue? Why is the Earth round? These were questions back before we knew how, the why were simply day dreams. My point here is, philosophy is for the individual to ask himself questions, but it is not a tool to find anything. Saying you want to use philosophy to find "God" is like saying you want to use your imagination to put together a scenario that makes sense to you, regardless of what you come up with you still haven't done anything definitive that would actually unveil the creator if one existed.

[PirateGlen]

lol genius, what I said went right over your head.

If God is supernatural and can change things in the natural world, there is no point to science.

Science says there is a natural and logical explanation for everything, that in time and with the right information and knowledge, everything can be explained rationally according to the fundamental laws of the universe. But introduce a supernatural God that can break those universal laws into that equation, and you have to throw that concept out the window.

Hawaii has a really, really weird ecosystem. 800 species of ONE kind of fly, but not one single native reptile species. Science says there's a logical and quantifiable reason for that, because everything in the universe, without exception, has an explanation.

But Creationists, whenever faced with something that they can't understand using current scientific knowledge, instead of using the scientific method and doing research to find the reason, they jump automatically to the "god made it that way" conclusion. "God made Hawaii that way to prove evolution wrong!!"

boil that down, and it applies to FUCKING EVERYTHING. Gravity? Since God doesn't have to obey the rules, he may just be gluing us to the planet and we only think gravity exists. Time? Maybe we really haven't been here for billions of years (or thousands), maybe we were just willed into existance 5 minutes ago with a worn down planet and a bunch of false memories.

The only way we can quantify something is with the rules of nature. Nothing has to be quantified, nothing CAN be quantified, if something exists outside those laws, and like that quote said, in a universe with a supernatural diety, logic has no place because it has no relevance.

so either say everything is some manifestation of the laws of physics, or say that the laws of physics don't mean shit because God controls everything, but you can't have both. Evolutionist christians are just pussies clinging to their outdated belief system while trying to rationalize the irrational.

This isn't exactly accurate. Science makes no claims one way or another regarding the supernatural because science has no means of dealing with the supernatural. Science does not assert that the supernatural does not or cannot exist because it would be unscientific to make such a claim. There is not and cannot be a scientific claim regarding the supernatural.

[CyanIdesOfMarch]

This isn't exactly accurate. Science makes no claims one way or another regarding the supernatural because science has no means of dealing with the supernatural. Science does not assert that the supernatural does not or cannot exist because it would be unscientific to make such a claim. There is not and cannot be a scientific claim regarding the supernatural.

As someone said earlier, if the supernatural did exist then science would cease to be the chief means of understanding. The introduction of the supernatural would make the laws we understand today mere temporary institutions of the supernatural, nothing would every be permanent and reality couldn't really exist.

[StainlessSteelRat]

If God is supernatural and can change things in the natural world, there is no point to science.

Only if he keeps changing the laws to fuck w/ us...... If he created and subsequently let the creation run w/o further tinkering, science would still have a point.

Just saying..

[StainlessSteelRat]

As someone said earlier, if the supernatural did exist then science would cease to be the chief means of understanding. The introduction of the supernatural would make the laws we understand today mere temporary institutions of the supernatural, nothing would every be permanent and reality couldn't really exist.

No it wouldn't. It would only introduce new laws into the equation. You would have natural laws and supernatural laws.

[CyanIdesOfMarch]

No it wouldn't. It would only introduce new laws into the equation. You would have natural laws and supernatural laws.

It would cease to be the laws of the universe and term into the imposed temporary rules of the universe. Anything that could change them at any given time would through 'science' out the window since he himself does not operate based on the same rules.

EDIT: I suppose your right in that regard though, although there is never any way of knowing when something will change, it would add in a variable that would completely fuck things up.

[Taroth]

What I don't understand is why there has to be a God. I mean, sure, we don't know what caused the Big Bang, but why does a single entity have to cause it?

And why is that single entity sentinent?
And why is that sentient single entity benevolent?
And why does that single sentient benevolent entity care about Earth?
And why does that single sentient benevolent entity that cares about Earth, care about life?
And why does that single sentient benevolent entity that cares about Earth and life, create humans?
And why does that single sentient benevolent entity that cares about Earth, life, and humans create a special place for the human mind to go after it dies?
Etc.

I mean... really? Can someone please give an explanation why he/she feels that this SPECIFICALLY is the case? Or is it that you just really want it to be true, and you will delude your mind to protect yourself against the cold reality of human existance?

[CyanIdesOfMarch]

What I don't understand is why there has to be a God. I mean, sure, we don't know what caused the Big Bang, but why does a single entity have to cause it?

And why is that single entity sentinent?
And why is that sentient single entity benevolent?
And why does that single sentient benevolent entity care about Earth?
And why does that single sentient benevolent entity that cares about Earth, care about life?
And why does that single sentient benevolent entity that cares about Earth and life, create humans?
And why does that single sentient benevolent entity that cares about Earth, life, and humans create a special place for the human mind to go after it dies?
Etc.

I mean... really? Can someone please give an explanation why he/she feels that this SPECIFICALLY is the case? Or is it that you just really want it to be true, and will delude your mind to protect yourself against the cold reality of human existance?

Bible says so.

[Crazy Hermit]

Bible says so.

Ive seen books that say the bible is wrong.

[CyanIdesOfMarch]

Ive seen books that say the bible is wrong.

Blasphemy.

[inox]

Ive seen books that say the bible is wrong.

Well, yeah, but the Bible is older, not to mention it was written by God. Take that, you... you hippie!

[Taroth]

Thank you for demeaning the entire human race. There is NOTHING more complex than ourselves, how our body works and how our brain functions. Im not commenting on the mental capacity of the general population, im commenting on our structure and how we function. And to say it is the product of nothing, or some "magical" unconscious force for no reason is the most ridiculous thing ive heard. I hate religion just as much as you, but you have to understand that the concept of a Creator was born out of philosophy, not religion

I'm sorry if all the great thinkers happened to be a theist in some form. Im sorry if Einstein, Newton, aristotle, plato, socrates, jung, emreson, plank, thoreau, shakespeare ect. ect. Believed that we were not the product of unconsciousness. You have no knowledge of what you speak of, and the atheist side has very little people that have impacted the world in any way.

Einstein was right when he said he rarely ever new a scientist that concerned himself with epistomology. The study of knowledge. You are so narrow that you still cannot make a constructive argument on my reasoning of you must use different methods to prove different things. Please explain how biological science and psycology can prove morals and ethics. Morals and ethics are a brach of philosophy, always have been and always will be.

And you still will not comment on my argument of you must use different methods to prove different things. You make bold statements such as "weak analogy" without giving me any reason to backup your attack. The scientific method is not the holy grail of proving everything that is true. I guess the entire body of philosophy, which is knowledge, is nothing. Thats what im hearing you say. And every great person to walk the face of this earth was a philosopher at heart. But you have convinced me that your obviously smarter and more knowledgeable on the subject than then /sarcasm.

You sir, completely demean the entire body of philosophical thinking, you demean knowledge at its core. Philosophy is no different than science, they are in different realms of knowledge. Science says, This is how matter interacts because we know this. Philosophy says "This is why this happens for this reason." They are two sides to one coin.

Therefore in the end, it appears to be every great thinker vs. a forumfaller. I wonder who will win.

Edit: Im waiting for someone to try and say Einstein didn't believe in a conscious God. Atheists love to misinterpret great minds.

Sorry just wanted to make sure this gem didn't disappear. +1 Internets for anyone who tallies the number of Strawmans in this post.

[PirateGlen]

As someone said earlier, if the supernatural did exist then science would cease to be the chief means of understanding. The introduction of the supernatural would make the laws we understand today mere temporary institutions of the supernatural, nothing would every be permanent and reality couldn't really exist.

This is incorrect. This would require that all known and unknown things are part of the natural world. Certainly something that is supernatural would not be obliged to natural laws. The laws do not suddenly cease to exist, only that they apply to things that are a part of their dominion: things that are natural.

It's comparable to the distinction between newtonian physics and quantum physics.

[Honorius]

You know, I thought most of forumfall had a college education. I was clearly wrong.

[Crazy Hermit]

well, yeah, but the bible is older, not to mention it was written by god. Take that, you... You hippie!

ahhhhh!!!!! My feelings!!!!!!!!!! They've been crushed!!!!!!!!!!! :(

[inox]

ahhhhh!!!!! My feelings!!!!!!!!!! They've been crushed!!!!!!!!!!! :(

There is still time to repent. Just pay me a hefty sum of money and you'll get a ticket to Jesus' eternal party.

[Crazy Hermit]

There is still time to repent. Just pay me a hefty sum of money and you'll get a ticket to Jesus' eternal party.

But Villa already sold me a ticket to Muhammeds basement.

[inox]

But Villa already sold me a ticket to Muhammeds basement.

Get a refund! All the cool people are coming to Jesus' place.

[Crazy Hermit]

Get a refund! All the cool people are coming to Jesus' place.

I dont know.....I've heard David Blaine is pretty cool too.

[Nunz]

You know, I thought most of forumfall had a college education. I was clearly wrong.

I wish College taught you how to think.

[ZeroCool]

Even from a philosophical point of view we could come to the conclusion that the universe does not have a creator and it just is. There does not have to be a why.

I listed off a few atheist/agnostics off the top of my head, your stance on communism, evolution, genius works of literature are all completely irrelevant, I'm sorry you don't respect people whos opinions do not mirror your own. I even put in Epicurus who was a Greek Philosopher, figured you might take something from that but you seemed to miss it completely, oh well.

Your entire argument is based off some abstract concept of why which assumes there is a reason for everything while using philosophy to find that answer. The fatal flaw in your argument however is the fact that philosophy has no means of finding out anything. Please point out to me one time in which philosophy by itself has determined something complex without the assistance of something like science. To my knowledge it has never happened, you can't figure out why because there either is no reason or we are far too behind to know those reasons. But how would we figure out those reasons? By finding out the How first and by knowing How we find Why.

Why is the sky blue? Why is the Earth round? These were questions back before we knew how, the why were simply day dreams. My point here is, philosophy is for the individual to ask himself questions, but it is not a tool to find anything. Saying you want to use philosophy to find "God" is like saying you want to use your imagination to put together a scenario that makes sense to you, regardless of what you come up with you still haven't done anything definitive that would actually unveil the creator if one existed.

Let me give you a metaphor

Imagine if a painting were only aware of itself and the canvas on which it was painted, nothing else. Would it come to the conclusion that there were a painter? It can do all the tests on itself and on the canvas, but all it would gain is more about itself and the canvas, it would not learn that it was painted. The way in which it would come to the conclusion that there were a painter is by standing from a philosophical point of view. Using a different "method" because this thing its looking for cannot be directly or indirectly obsereved. It sees beauty, symmetry, purpose, and ultimately design in itself, therefore it comes to the conclusion that there was a painter. Which we know, because anything that carries design made by humans, we know to be a creation.

Now you can say life isnt as simple as a metaphor. But in reality we are the painting and the canvas is the universe, it isn't all that different. Im not one for a dogmatic God, not even a personal one. But something definitally greater than us, who operates on a different level we cant directly observe.

Although philosophy is a small portion of why i believe in a God. Personal experience, experience from others close to me, and certain patterns and events shape the majority of my belief. I wont begin to get into those because most people would pick fun and try to find flaws, but myself and others know the experience we've had, and we don't care what anyone else thinks. God for us is proven. Its like Carl Jung said, the father of analytical pscycoanalysis, when he was asked if he believed in God. He said "I do not believe, i know he exists" He had a life changing experience, he used to be an atheist also.

Im just trying to show you, people do have a good reason to believe in a God, not all of us are lunatics. And the evolution vs creation vs atheist vs theist debate will reign forever until finally someone points the truth out clearer than the sun or the moon. And yes I'll argue with a dogmatic creationist just as much as a atheistic evolutionist.

Edit: Oh and philosophy whole purpose is to enrich mans life with knowledge. It doesnt need the aid of "science" Just experience. For example. A good number of philosophers say life is 10% what happens to you and 90% what you do with what happens to you. Other philosophers say if you change your attitude you change your life. Ive experienced this, when your attitude is great, life is great and all goes extremely well, when you have a shitty attitude, life is shitty and you are half functioning. You are in control of the attitude you bring to each day. Why do you need science to prove something you can experience yourself, and know that its true? "A jug fills drop by drop" "The journey of a thousand miles began with a single step". Ect. ect. Why do you need science to prove something that lies in the realm of personal experience? The more you work on something, the better you get. The more you practice, the more skillfull you are. Those are philosophical implications you can experience youself, you dont need the aid of "science" Sure we can see now that science shows how our brain gathers information and stores them and shows "how" we get better at things. But thousands of years ago, people used philosophy to find the answer to those things. Your attitude is your life, that was a philosophical notion, and you dont need science to prove it! You need to experience it yourself. And if what you experienced is the same thing the philosophical metaphor was saying, then why in the hell do you need to try and "prove" it further to make completely certain its right?

Philosophy has had answers since the beginning of time, in contrast to what you said, that it cannot prove anything. Its based around personal experience and observation. And if you follow a philosophy and it works completely and shows its truth, how is it not "proven"?

And yes im a fan of epicurus, not all of his work of course.

[CyanIdesOfMarch]

Let me give you a metaphor

Imagine if a painting were only aware of itself and the canvas on which it was painted, nothing else. Would it come to the conclusion that there were a painter? It can do all the tests on itself and on the canvas, but all it would gain is more about itself and the canvas, it would not learn that it was painted. The way in which it would come to the conclusion that there were a painter is by standing from a philosophical point of view. Using a different "method" because this thing its looking for cannot be directly or indirectly obsereved. It sees beauty, symmetry, purpose, and ultimately design in itself, therefore it comes to the conclusion that there was a painter. Which we know, because anything that carries design made by humans, we know to be a creation.

Now you can say life isnt as simple as a metaphor. But in reality we are the painting and the canvas is the universe, it isn't all that different. Im not one for a dogmatic God, not even a personal one. But something definitally greater than us, who operates on a different level we cant directly observe.

Although philosophy is a small portion of why i believe in a God. Personal experience, experience from others close to me, and certain patterns and events shape the majority of my belief. I wont begin to get into those because most people would pick fun and try to find flaws, but myself and others know the experience we've had, and we don't care what anyone else thinks. God for us is proven. Its like Carl Jung said, the father of analytical pscycoanalysis, when he was asked if he believed in God. He said "I do not believe, i know he exists" He had a life changing experience, he used to be an atheist also.

Im just trying to show you, people do have a good reason to believe in a God, not all of us are lunatics. And the evolution vs creation vs atheist vs theist debate will reign forever until finally someone points the truth out clearer than the sun or the moon. And yes I'll argue with a dogmatic creationist just as much as a atheistic evolutionist.

Edit: Oh and philosophy whole purpose is to enrich mans life with knowledge. It doesnt need the aid of "science" Just experience. For example. A good number of philosophers say life is 10% what happens to you and 90% what you do with what happens to you. Other philosophers say if you change your attitude you change your life. Ive experienced this, when your attitude is great, life is great and all goes extremely well, when you have a shitty attitude, life is shitty and you are half functioning. You are in control of the attitude you bring to each day. Why do you need science to prove something you can experience yourself, and know that its true? "A jug fills drop by drop" "The journey of a thousand miles began with a single step". Ect. ect. Why do you need science to prove something that lies in the realm of personal experience? The more you work on something, the better you get. The more you practice, the more skillfull you are. Those are philosophical implications you can experience youself, you dont need the aid of "science" Sure we can see now that science shows how our brain gathers information and stores them and shows "how" we get better at things. But thousands of years ago, people used philosophy to find the answer to those things. Your attitude is your life, that was a philosophical notion, and you dont need science to prove it! You need to experience it yourself. And if what you experienced is the same thing the philosophical metaphor was saying, then why in the hell do you need to try and "prove" it further to make completely certain its right?

Philosophy has had answers since the beginning of time, in contrast to what you said, that it cannot prove anything. Its based around personal experience and observation. And if you follow a philosophy and it works completely and shows its truth, how is it not "proven"?

And yes im a fan of epicurus, not all of his work of course.

I've heard that painting metaphor many times, not sure how it proves anything but I guess it's an interesting metaphor. Don't know how you'd arrive to the conclusion that there was a creator of the painting through philosophy, you'd arrive to an idea but never a real answer, but I guess through this argument what we've uncovered is that you don't care about silly things like proof and an abstract idea is good enough for you. Unfortunately that is not enough insight for me to "know" there is a Creator/God, it's enough for me to know their might be, but definitely not enough to start calling myself a deist and explaining the universe in pretty little metaphorical terms.

EDIT: The thing about philosophy that makes it so faulty in "proving" things is that it can come to several different conclusions in several different ways on one subject. One mans philosophy about the universe's origins could be totally different than enough, they both have the same validity until someone comes and proves one over the other.

This is incorrect. This would require that all known and unknown things are part of the natural world. Certainly something that is supernatural would not be obliged to natural laws. The laws do not suddenly cease to exist, only that they apply to things that are a part of their dominion: things that are natural.

It's comparable to the distinction between newtonian physics and quantum physics.

I thought we were talking about a God that could change the rules of physics when ever he chose to. If we were just talking about certain items that didn't follow the basic rules everything else followed then I retract my statement.

[ZeroCool]

Your right, it is an abstract idea no doubt, but I believe it has good reasoning behind it.

Lets just end this never ending debate. One day all God threads will end cause the truth will be proven. In our lifetime? Who knows.

Edit: On your edit about philosophy, yes this is true im familiar with peoples different views more than anyone. And in a way, everyones right in their own view. Like i said, its personal experience and observation that gives birth to philosophy, and not everyone has the same experience. So whatever philosophy works for you, you should follow. Proving philosophy lies in the realm of personal experience, and like I said, that changes from one person to another. Although there are universal philisophical truths, such as attitude, practice, ect. ect. Although most of them are common sense.

[Crazy Hermit]

Your right, it is an abstract idea no doubt, but I believe it has good reasoning behind it.

Lets just end this never ending debate. One day all God threads will end cause the truth will be proven. In our lifetime? Who knows.

You know as well as I that even if a truth is proved, not everyone will believe it, and people will continue making these threads to stir an argument.

[ZeroCool]

You know as well as I that even if a truth is proved, not everyone will believe it, and people will continue making these threads to stir an argument.

"Three things cannot long be hidden, the sun, the moon, and the truth" - Buddha.

The truth will one day be as clear as the sun and the moon, and if someone doesn't believe it, they must be blind :cool: Although ill admit ive seen alot of blind people in my life, that could see just fine.

In the end though, people will all be on the same page. It might take hundreds, or thousands of years, but eventually people will all agree on one universal truth. There are many wrongs but only one right, right?

[PirateGlen]

I thought we were talking about a God that could change the rules of physics when ever he chose to. If we were just talking about certain items that didn't follow the basic rules everything else followed then I retract my statement.

I never mentioned God in relation to that. I was merely pointing out an off-topic but important detail about science.

[Crazy Hermit]

"Three things cannot long be hidden, the sun, the moon, and the truth" - Buddha.

The truth will one day be as clear as the sun and the moon, and if someone doesn't believe it, they must be blind :cool: Although ill admit ive seen alot of blind people in my life, that could see just fine.

In the end though, people will all be on the same page. It might take hundreds, or thousands of years, but eventually people will all agree on one universal truth. There are many wrongs but only one right, right?

I dont believe that will ever happen as human nature will prevent it. There will always be people who will go against the "truth" and who wont believe it. Even if at some point you killed all who are like that, eventually more would be born.

[Signus]

What's the gain in believing in such a god?

I didn't realize gods had to exist to "give" us something. It's just a fairly rational belief/theory.

[Marrik]

Somewhere along the line something happened that created us. Or set up a path that we could be created and be living here in this moment.


Isn't that action, event or being our creator and or God?


no, because there was no point at which we were all created, we evolved over a long period. thats what ALL the evidence suggests. old books with talking animals and all type of bizzare shit in them are not evidence.



since there is no evidence of the existence of a deity, and since all organized religions can be proven false, and since it is EXACTLY the sort of thing that primitive, uneducated people would come up with to explain the unknown, i find it infinitely more likely that theres no gods and that the universe itself has always existed.

[Taroth]

I didn't realize gods had to exist to "give" us something. It's just a fairly rational belief/theory.

Damn. Before anything crazy happens here, lets try and break down why you might feel this way:

1. There is no explanation for the Big Bang

2. Life is complex and beautiful

3. Without a God, there would be no absolute right or wrong

4. Life would have no meaning without God

Please note the numbers that you feel make faith in God a rational belief/theory and also any other rationale that I have not outlined.

[Crazy Hermit]

Damn. Before anything crazy happens here, lets try and break down why you might feel this way:

1. There is no explanation for the Big Bang

2. Life is complex and beautiful

3. Without a God, there would be no absolute right or wrong

4. Life would have no meaning without God

Please note the numbers that you feel make faith in God a rational belief/theory and also any other rationale that I have not outlined.

While I agree with 1 and 2, I don't agree with 3 and 4. With or without a god, there still is right and wrong. While believing in a god may help you form a moral code of ethics, lack of belief in a god doesn't mean people won't have any belief in what is right or wrong. Life has plenty of meaning without god, have you ever thought about caring for your children, or bettering the world, or just enjoying yourself? Unless you have completely devoted yourself to god, there is plenty of meaning you can find without him.

[Taroth]

While I agree with 1 and 2, I don't agree with 3 and 4. With or without a god, there still is right and wrong. While believing in a god may help you form a moral code of ethics, lack of belief in a god doesn't mean people won't have any belief in what is right or wrong. Life has plenty of meaning without god, have you ever thought about caring for your children, or bettering the world, or just enjoying yourself? Unless you have completely devoted yourself to god, there is plenty of meaning you can find without him.

Yes I'm aware these can certainly be rebutted. That isn't the point. Signus claimed that it was rational to believe in God, and I'm trying to understand why he feels this way.

[Marrik]

Damn. Before anything crazy happens here, lets try and break down why you might feel this way:

1. There is no explanation for the Big Bang

2. Life is complex and beautiful

3. Without a God, there would be no absolute right or wrong

4. Life would have no meaning without God

Please note the numbers that you feel make faith in God a rational belief/theory and also any other rationale that I have not outlined.


1. thats correct, and why i think perhaps the universe has just always existed.

2. indeed it is.

3. you are right. there is no such thing as absolute right and wrong, it is a human construct.

4. what exactly do you mean by "meaning of life"? is that like, purpose? your purpose is to have sex and make more humans, thats about it. sorry if that dissapoints you. if you dont like it, then go find a new purpose. if your purpose is serving the superbeing though, you are going to be dissapointed when you die. well actually, you wont be anything.

[Taroth]

1. thats correct, and why i think perhaps the universe has just always existed.

2. indeed it is.

3. you are right. there is no such thing as absolute right and wrong, it is a human construct.

4. what exactly do you mean by "meaning of life"? is that like, purpose? your purpose is to have sex and make more humans, thats about it. sorry if that dissapoints you. if you dont like it, then go find a new purpose. if your purpose is serving the superbeing though, you are going to be dissapointed when you die. well actually, you wont be anything.

Damnit I'm not a thiest. Is it too much to read why I actually posted the bullets?

[Early Grace]

Maybe. ;)

I haven't ever given much thought to the subject at all, in fact I don't care for it at all. How ever, I was doing a shit today ( as you may remember, see here: http://forums.darkfallonline.com/showthread.php?t=216952) and I thought, couldn't have God created the basics, and then we evolved from that? and, will this spark a discussion on Forumfall?

Discuss.

Don't confuse creationism and intelligent design.

[CyanIdesOfMarch]

Don't confuse creationism and intelligent design.

Thin line, intelligent design is closer to my way of thinking but it still reeks of religious bullshit.

[Early Grace]

I'm sorry if all the great thinkers happened to be a theist in some form. Im sorry if Einstein, Newton, aristotle, plato, socrates, jung, emreson, plank, thoreau, shakespeare ect. ect. Believed that we were not the product of unconsciousness. You have no knowledge of what you speak of, and the atheist side has very little people that have impacted the world in any way.


So you have never read or totally discredit Ayn Rand, Nietzsche, Sartre, Spinoza, Marx, Peter Singer, Bertrand Russell, Camus, Freud, Simone de Beauvoir, John Stuart Mill, Hume, Hegel and the list goes on.

And Einstein is famous for saying something along the lines of "I believe in Spinoza's god" not that he believed in god. Read Spinoza's "Theological-Political Treatise", along with Mason's "The God of Spinoza" and Hampshire's Spinoza and Spinozism" and then talk about Einsteins view of god.

[ZeroCool]

So you have never read or totally discredit Ayn Rand, Nietzsche, Sartre, Spinoza, Marx, Peter Singer, Bertrand Russell, Camus, Freud, Simone de Beauvoir, John Stuart Mill, Hume, Hegel and the list goes on.

And Einstein is famous for saying something along the lines of "I believe in Spinoza's god" not that he believed in god. Read Spinoza's "Theological-Political Treatise", along with Mason's "The God of Spinoza" and Hampshire's Spinoza and Spinozism" and then talk about Einsteins view of god.

Ive heard around 5 of the people you listed, they are hardly household names like plato, einstein, shakespeare, hawking, aristotle, marcus aureilieus, newton, plank, emerson, thoreau, ect ect.

Let Einstein tell you what he believed

"I believe in Spinoza's God, Who reveals Himself in the lawful harmony of the world, not in a God Who concerns Himself with the fate and the doings of mankind."

My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind.

"In the view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who says there is no God. But what makes me really angry is that they quote me for support of such views.

Yes your right, he didnt believe in the conventional personal God you agnostics or atheists battle, but from his writings it is evident he did believe in a superior force or higher conscious power. Atheists love to misinterprut Einstein, and even he got pissed off about it.

Edit: Oh and if you really want to understand what spinoza believed, please read his "ethics" It outlines that he believes God has infinitley many attributes, and nature and God arent the same, but nature is part of God, or nature is "in" God.

[Early Grace]

Ive heard around 5 of the people you listed, they are hardly household names like plato, einstein, shakespeare, aristotle, marcus aureilieus, newton, plank, emerson, thoreau, ect ect.

Let Einstein tell you what he believed

"I believe in Spinoza's God, Who reveals Himself in the lawful harmony of the world, not in a God Who concerns Himself with the fate and the doings of mankind."

My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind.

"In the view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who says there is no God. But what makes me really angry is that they quote me for support of such views.

Yes your right, he didnt believe in the conventional personal God you agnostics or atheists battle, but from his writings it is evident he did believe in a superior force or higher conscious power. Atheists love to misinterprut Einstein, and even he got pissed off about it.

I never once said I was an atheist. What I said was you are wrong. You have failed to interpret Einstein because you have failed to put in the work to understand what he said. You can read quotes all you want but the simple fact that you have not heard of every single person I named pretty much means you are not nearly as well versed in philosophy, and theology and you think you are.

Reading a wiki article and quoting some things you googled is hardly spending a lifetime studying, actually reading the works of philosophers in full... you know like more than one time and then reading supplementary material to help you interpret what you have read.

I gave you a full listing of works that will entirely explain Spinoza's philosophy of god and nature and therefor allow you to understand what Einstein meant by that quote, instead you chose to ignore me thinking you know better and trying to interpret the other things he says without the proper background in the people he studied.

Socrates would mock you and consider you a fool, and with that... You also show your ignorance about the ancient Greek philosophers. I don't know where you get the idea that they believed in god... o wait I do, you think you know a ton of stuff but in reality don't know anything. It is a fairly widely accepted interpretation of Plato and Aristotle especially that the civil peace was of the highest importance and that it was fine to lie to the common uneducated masses to keep them in a state of contentment to keep the peace.

[CyanIdesOfMarch]

Ive heard around 5 of the people you listed, they are hardly household names like plato, einstein, shakespeare, hawking, aristotle, marcus aureilieus, newton, plank, emerson, thoreau, ect ect.

Let Einstein tell you what he believed

"I believe in Spinoza's God, Who reveals Himself in the lawful harmony of the world, not in a God Who concerns Himself with the fate and the doings of mankind."

My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind.

"In the view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who says there is no God. But what makes me really angry is that they quote me for support of such views.

Yes your right, he didnt believe in the conventional personal God you agnostics or atheists battle, but from his writings it is evident he did believe in a superior force or higher conscious power. Atheists love to misinterprut Einstein, and even he got pissed off about it.

Edit: Oh and if you really want to understand what spinoza believed, please read his "ethics" It outlines that he believes God has infinitley many attributes, and nature and God arent the same, but nature is part of God, or nature is "in" God.

Just because you haven't heard of them doesn't make them any less influential or important, just means you have very limited historical knowledge. Besides, non-religious people have been persecuted in nearly every society for long extended periods of time, not exactly a fair playing field. Also you should know your great philosophers got a lot of things wrong and set a lot of people on the wrong path for more than a 1000 years in astronomy. And you can't have Shakespeare if you don't count Twain as great.

[Early Grace]

Edit: Oh and if you really want to understand what spinoza believed, please read his "ethics" It outlines that he believes God has infinitley many attributes, and nature and God arent the same, but nature is part of God, or nature is "in" God.

Edit: So you are really saying read Spinoza's "Ethics" instead of any of the three works I mentioned? I mean please stop talking you are embarrassing yourself.

[ZeroCool]

To cyanideofmarch

Im sorry if i havent heard of each and every person thats impacted this world. Lets stop this who's on which side debate, it wont accomplish anything. Im not saying twain wasnt great either. But i dont think hes in the same league as shakespeare.

My point of the post was in trying to defend Einsteins real belief, and Spinoza's misunderstood philosophy which many people believe to be atheistic, when its really pantheism.

[ZeroCool]

Edit: So you are really saying read Spinoza's "Ethics" instead of any of the three works I mentioned? I mean please stop talking you are embarrassing yourself.

Oh please stop using the personal attack method to change the subject. If you want to debate me attack my ideal in the subject. Im waiting.

[Early Grace]

My point of the post was in trying to defend Einsteins real belief, and Spinoza's misunderstood philosophy which many people believe to be atheistic, when its really pantheism.

This is flat out wrong, Spinoza is notoriously one of the hardest philosopher to interpret and whatever wiki article you read obviously proves that.

[FatRednekk]

I hate to think that people believe we were created in gods imagine. I'm religious, I believe in Jesus. But I do NOT believe in Creationism. Some of the terrible shit that happens in this world? What people can do to others?

Fuck meeting whatever god made Ed Gein or Tommy Lynn Sells.

[ZeroCool]

This is flat out wrong, Spinoza is notoriously one of the hardest philosopher to interpret and whatever wiki article you read obviously proves that.

Then lets not beat our head against this philosophical rock

[CyanIdesOfMarch]

I hate to think that people believe we were created in gods imagine. I'm religious, I believe in Jesus. But I do NOT believe in Creationism. Some of the terrible shit that happens in this world? What people can do to others?

Fuck meeting whatever god made Ed Gein or Tommy Lynn Sells.

Why do you believe in Jesus?

I'm skeptical that he even existed as a human.

[Early Grace]

Why do you believe in Jesus?

I'm skeptical that he even existed as a human.

There is a fair amount of evidence to say he existed as a human. Saying he believes in Jesus was wrong, he should have said he accepts Jesus.

[FatRednekk]

Why do you believe in Jesus?

I'm skeptical that he even existed as a human.

I firmly believe he existed as a human, I'm a firm believer that he represented a higher power.

Each person dictates religion in their own matter, it's why I wont be raising my children as Christians. I'll give them the chance to decide whether or not they follow their fathers faith or not.

[CyanIdesOfMarch]

There is a fair amount of evidence to say he existed as a human. Saying he believes in Jesus was wrong, he should have said he accepts Jesus.

Everything written about Jesus was written a generation after his death so that is where my skepticism comes. Still I suppose it is more probable than not that he existed, or someone like him existed, as many others at the time were roaming around preaching the same message.

[Early Grace]

Everything written about Jesus was written a generation after his death so that is where my skepticism comes. Still I suppose it is more probable than not that he existed, or someone like him existed, as many others at the time were roaming around preaching the same message.

I don't mean through scripture, there are a handful of historical accounts that make it very probable that a man named Jesus did exist, I think some issues arise with the translations of names etc.

[CyanIdesOfMarch]

I don't mean through scripture, there are a handful of historical accounts that make it very probable that a man named Jesus did exist, I think some issues arise with the translations of names etc.

Yea, I think we have the same take on the subject. I just like to point out that even his existence as a human is disputed, it riles some people up lol.

[Early Grace]

Yea, I think we have the same take on the subject. I just like to point out that even his existence as a human is disputed, it riles some people up lol.

Yea, I didn't mean to imply that it is 100% accepted fact... even though that is what I did imply :( ...

I also think that if he didn't exist as a person the Catholic church would do whatever they could to make it seem like he did. That alone means there should be some skepticism, and there are of course things that don't add up, you'd think there would be many more records. But in general most of that is groundless speculation. And I certainly don't mean to sound like a conspiracy theorist or anything :D .

[BlysterEB]

This is cool. Few things from my take & a story.

-We're here & no one will ever know why.

-If there is a "God", then who created him & when & why? (don't try to answer, this is of course rhetorical)

-Something set this whole thing in motion. Is it one omnipotent being? Logic says no. Logic says energy, dark & light, black & white, matter & anti-matter is/are constants that don't have a beginning or end & we're just by-products of what's likely a very common occurance over time. And by time, I don't mean since the big bang. There's probably been infinite big bangs all over the universe. There is no starting & stopping period for energy.

-We're fucked. This world will end eventually. Humans on this Earth in this reality will go bye bye sooner than later. The Earth will run out of resources & stop spinning & implode one day. And it's unreasonable to consider that there's a "God" that built us in his image with the concept of "Free Will" just as an experiment in "lets see what the fuck might happen" up until the planet I stick them on blows up. That would suggest we have a purpose, which is rediculous to conceive. You don't start us out as 1-celled organisms & wait millions of years for us to walk out of the ocean, then drop an asteroid on the planet in hopes it changes the entire makup & sparks the evolution of the beings that will be the end product of your "free will experiment". If you're that clever & your abilities are that incredible, then you would already know the outcome of everything, including what might happen if you fashion entities that can think, reason, & have free will. Not to mention, why would "God" need to know what we end up doing or becoming? Again, that would suggest we have a purpose & we obviously don't as I just explained. And if we have no purpose, then why would God create us? Who does something for truely no reason? The answer... nobody. It's simply that basic.

Now the story... I have been raised Catholic. I go to church every Sunday with my family. I sit there bored out of my mind most of the time wondering why the fuck I'm wasting this hour of my life. But then I look over at my 2 daughters & I think to myself, at least this is teaching them to be good people. Maybe some day they will choose to think logically rather than just believe what someone tells them. I'll let them make that choice. In the mean time, we'll keep being good people while we exist & i'll teach them to keep being good people until the day I die. If it takes me faking a belief in God by going to church, so be it. I do have a purpose right now & it's to raise my kids & be a husband & do whatever it takes to do that right & not be a shit stain on the world while doing it.

Do I believe in God? Sorry, just can't. It just doesn't make sense to me. And my head is also telling me that this life we got is all there is. My gut tells me when I die, i'm done, a memory & that's it. My ability to exist, think, reason, have free will........ gone. Again, it just doesn't make logical sense to me that my "spirit" or "essense" will continue on somewhere & i'll be able to function mentally even though my physical body & brain will be dead. That's just not reasonable or logical for all the same reasons I explained above.

[Gloomrender]

There is no god, god-damnit.

[StaticBlack]

If something such as 'God' does exist in any form then so be it, but I much prefer the notion that we exist for no known reason instead of being put through some trial (apologies for my ignorance on western religion, but that's how I view it) to earn the favour of some greater being. Plus I personally find half of all that mumbo jumbo incredibly flawed and self contradicting.

[Sqarak]

If something such as 'God' does exist in any form then so be it, but I much prefer the notion that we exist for no known reason instead of being put through some trial (apologies for my ignorance on western religion, but that's how I view it) to earn the favour of some greater being. Plus I personally find half of all that mumbo jumbo incredibly flawed and self contradicting.

Regardless of whether you believe or not, your existence has hopefully a purpose at least to yourself.

[StaticBlack]

It definatley does. As corny as it sounds, I feel like my purpose is about experiencing different things and making other peoples lives worth living.

[Early Grace]

-We're fucked. This world will end eventually. Humans on this Earth in this reality will go bye bye sooner than later. The Earth will run out of resources & stop spinning & implode one day. And it's unreasonable to consider that there's a "God" that built us in his image with the concept of "Free Will" just as an experiment in "lets see what the fuck might happen" up until the planet I stick them on blows up. That would suggest we have a purpose, which is rediculous to conceive. You don't start us out as 1-celled organisms & wait millions of years for us to walk out of the ocean, then drop an asteroid on the planet in hopes it changes the entire makup & sparks the evolution of the beings that will be the end product of your "free will experiment". If you're that clever & your abilities are that incredible, then you would already know the outcome of everything, including what might happen if you fashion entities that can think, reason, & have free will. Not to mention, why would "God" need to know what we end up doing or becoming? Again, that would suggest we have a purpose & we obviously don't as I just explained. And if we have no purpose, then why would God create us? Who does something for truely no reason? The answer... nobody. It's simply that basic.


Planets, especially like Earth don't implode, nor do they stop spinning. Their internal cores can stop being molten eliminating the planets magnetic field but this means the planet goes cold like Mercury.

And by sooner rather than later you mean like a few hundred thousand years minimum right?

[BlysterEB]

Planets, especially like Earth don't implode, nor do they stop spinning. Their internal cores can stop being molten eliminating the planets magnetic field but this means the planet goes cold like Mercury.

And by sooner rather than later you mean like a few hundred thousand years minimum right?

It was completely rhetorical. It's mind boggling that anyone would even question what that says as literal.

The point was simple, the Earth will end some day & we humans will be gone from existance. As a result, this means we don't have a purpose. And logic says no one does something without a purpose for doing it (especially not some omnipotent all powerful entity), therefore no one created us.

[Early Grace]

It was completely rhetorical. It's mind boggling that anyone would even question what that says as literal.

The point was simple, the Earth will end some day & we humans will be gone from existance. As a result, this means we don't have a purpose. And logic says no one does something without a purpose for doing it (especially not some omnipotent all powerful entity), therefore no one created us.

Making false claims that a. don't boost your argument and b. don't emphasize anything (because they are false) doesn't make it rhetorical. And don't try and make some claim of pompousness or pretension to defend calling it rhetorical.

[Attau]

It was completely rhetorical. It's mind boggling that anyone would even question what that says as literal.

The point was simple, the Earth will end some day & we humans will be gone from existance. As a result, this means we don't have a purpose. And logic says no one does something without a purpose for doing it (especially not some omnipotent all powerful entity), therefore no one created us.

Edit: I really don't care about this debate so I don't know why I bothered posting - Just as long as you leave me alone you can believe whatever the fuck you want.

[StainlessSteelRat]

Making false claims that a. don't boost your argument and b. don't emphasize anything (because they are false) doesn't make it rhetorical. And don't try and make some claim of pompousness or pretension to defend calling it rhetorical.

False claim? So you don't think the world will end......ever?

Look up rhetoric/rhetorical. Also, familiarize yourself with certain idioms. Often, the idea of the earth continuing to spin is used in conjunction w/ negative life altering events. In other words, "it's not the end of the world". So, even if you don't agree that he was being rhetorical, to take it literally was........dumb.

Hola Blys. What brings you to my neck of the woods? ;)

[Early Grace]

False claim? So you don't think the world will end......ever?

Look up rhetoric/rhetorical. Also, familiarize yourself with certain idioms. Often, the idea of the earth continuing to spin is used in conjunction w/ negative life altering events. In other words, "it's not the end of the world". So, even if you don't agree that he was being rhetorical, to take it literally was........dumb.

Hola Blys. What brings you to my neck of the woods? ;)

I know what rhetoric and rhetorical is and this is not it...

I didn't say the earth or humans would go on forever, what I said is saying "sooner" rather than "later" was most likely very incorrect.

He said the earth will stop spinning, that means uh the earth stops spinning? The earth spinning may be used in that conjunction but it certainly was not here.

People can't make literal statements without expecting people to think that is what they mean.

Instead of trying to use fancy nuances of the literal meaning of words, and semantics that he is clearly not capable of using he should simply stick to clearly saying what he actually means.

[jonyak]

I know what rhetoric and rhetorical is and this is not it...

I didn't say the earth or humans would go on forever, what I said is saying "sooner" rather than "later" was most likely very incorrect.

He said the earth will stop spinning, that means uh the earth stops spinning? The earth spinning may be used in that conjunction but it certainly was not here.

People can't make literal statements without expecting people to think that is what they mean.

Instead of trying to use fancy nuances of the literal meaning of words, and semantics that he is clearly not capable of using he should simply stick to clearly saying what he actually means.

Moron^

[ZeroCool]

It was completely rhetorical. It's mind boggling that anyone would even question what that says as literal.

The point was simple, the Earth will end some day & we humans will be gone from existance. As a result, this means we don't have a purpose. And logic says no one does something without a purpose for doing it (especially not some omnipotent all powerful entity), therefore no one created us.

20 years ago we had super nintendo and now we have xbox 360

Im sure in hundreds of thousands of years we will of expanded beyond earth.

[Sqarak]

20 years ago we had super nintendo and now we have xbox 360

Im sure in hundreds of thousands of years we will of expanded beyond earth.

BlysterED's offspring will still be wondering if their nose is a great source of candy or a good place to stash stuff.

[StainlessSteelRat]

Moron^

And for the record, jonyak and I never agree on issues but we do engage in healthy debate where we are capable of understanding what the other posts.

So, I think you (Early) do need to reconsider your knowledge of rhetoric and your capacity for reading comprehension.

[Early Grace]

And for the record, jonyak and I never agree on issues but we do engage in healthy debate where we are capable of understanding what the other posts.

So, I think you (Early) do need to reconsider your knowledge of rhetoric and your capacity for reading comprehension.

you guys are like the kids in school trying to prove a professor wrong.

[Silverhandorder]

you guys are like the kids in school trying to prove a professor wrong.

And you are a moron who is arguing about shit that does not effect anyone.

[jonyak]

you guys are like the kids in school trying to prove a professor wrong.

you're like the idiot professor who refuses to accept that maybe the kids in his class migth be right, simply because he is a professor and they are just kids.

[Early Grace]

And you are a moron who is arguing about shit that does not effect anyone.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree on what we consider to be important in life.

[Sqarak]

I guess we will have to agree to disagree on what we consider to be important in life.

OMG, do you know where your are?

[Early Grace]

OMG, do you know where your are?

http://biobreak.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/the-twilight-zone.jpeg

[GFH_Spike]

You certainly shit often. With that being said, if you define God as the big bang, then yes, we evolved billions of years after those initial conditions, and directly as a result of them. Of course, then you would be referring to the big bang, not God. You could slide into an infinite regress, if you so desire, but I would rather apply Occam's razor at the outset, leaving God somewhere outside the equation of the universe. As typically defined, it does not belong. Furthermore, if you believe in causation, it was inevitable in this universe that humanity would have eventually developed.

[Nunz]

You certainly shit often. With that being said, if you define God as the big bang, then yes, we evolved billions of years after those initial conditions, and directly as a result of them. Of course, then you would be referring to the big bang, not God. You could slide into an infinite regress, if you so desire, but I would rather apply Occam's razor at the outset, leaving God somewhere outside the equation of the universe. As typically defined, it does not belong. Furthermore, if you believe in causation, it was inevitable in this universe that humanity would have eventually developed.

As intelligent as you make your self sound it seems like you've just given up wondering. God does not apply. Wonderful. Now you can live the rest of your life being no more than pain, pleasure and children.

But I wonder what would make you enter a conversation about a God if he didn't apply to you? What draws people to talk God, whether you believe, don't believe, or claim not to care?

Are we that simple to believe that there must be something greater without viable, visible and indisputable proof? Is it the search for God what will cause mans greatest achievements and or disappointments? We need something to strive for or we may stop working towards some sort of end?

We are here.. I believe, at least. And calling this all just chance.. Personally believing that we're an accident or a certainty, is much more far-fetched then believing in a creator.

[Taroth]

As intelligent as you make your self sound it seems like you've just given up wondering. God does not apply. Wonderful. Now you can live the rest of your life being no more than pain, pleasure and children.

But I wonder what would make you enter a conversation about a God if he didn't apply to you? What draws people to talk God, whether you believe, don't believe, or claim not to care?

Are we that simple to believe that there must be something greater without viable, visible and indisputable proof? Is it the search for God what will cause mans greatest achievements and or disappointments? We need something to strive for or we may stop working towards some sort of end?

We are here.. I believe, at least. And calling this all just chance.. Personally believing that we're an accident or a certainty, is much more far-fetched then believing in a creator.

Nunz you can probably gain some significant insight into your own mind by rereading your post a few times.

Realize that you are saying life would be, for a lack of a better word, lame if a creator didn't exist. You therefore desperately want there to be a God in order to fully satisfy the needs of your mind; You need there to be more than the general banality of human life on Earth due to the potential of your consciousness. If, suddenly, you became fully aware of the universe and knew that no such God existed, you would feel your existence was utterly pointless.

Sadly, this does not mean there is a God.

Before you regress, understand that as you reach this place, you will fall into misery and that is ok. You will want to just shake your head and go back to the delusions that protected you. Dont. The misery is temporary.

When you finally come to terms with reality, suddenly everything is incomprehensibly more amazing and beautiful as you can appreciate life and the universe simply as it is. No longer will you have the eternal nagging fear that the basis of your life is a man-made fabrication. You have become the master of your own reality.

Good luck.

[CyanIdesOfMarch]

As intelligent as you make your self sound it seems like you've just given up wondering. God does not apply. Wonderful. Now you can live the rest of your life being no more than pain, pleasure and children.

But I wonder what would make you enter a conversation about a God if he didn't apply to you? What draws people to talk God, whether you believe, don't believe, or claim not to care?

Are we that simple to believe that there must be something greater without viable, visible and indisputable proof? Is it the search for God what will cause mans greatest achievements and or disappointments? We need something to strive for or we may stop working towards some sort of end?

We are here.. I believe, at least. And calling this all just chance.. Personally believing that we're an accident or a certainty, is much more far-fetched then believing in a creator.

No... it's not. Think about how long the universe has existed and think about how many chances there are for life to begin. It is not at all implausible to think that we are but one of many culminations of billion year projects that eventually lead to civilized creatures.

The idea that someone decided to set us on a several billion year course and then started to communicate with us during our impossibly brief span of civilized existence is incredibly more far fetched than comparing the odds of random chance.

EDIT: I know what makes me speak of God on the occasional basis as I do is my amazement at the human race, the power for people to be willfully deluded both infuriates me and amuses me. It is incredibly sad and funny at the same time and that is what makes it so interesting to talk about.

[GFH_Spike]

I generally refrain from dissection, but I'll bite.

As intelligent as you make your self sound it seems like you've just given up wondering. God does not apply. Wonderful. Now you can live the rest of your life being no more than pain, pleasure and children.

The topic of this thread is whether or not God could have created the fundamental laws of the universe, ultimately leading to the evolution of **** sapiens. If one were to express a genuine belief that a pink unicorn humped a tree and ejaculated the universe, would you linger long in discussion with that individual before rejecting his or her assertion? Logically, it is utter shit, and the described entity is an unnecessary step beyond the big bang. That is, a point of singularity from which the universe expanded.

I don't waste much time on crackpot ideas, particularly when far more cohesive theories of the universe's origin exist, based in naturalistic cosmology. I wonder about those, primarily. I've yet to cross a deistic or theistic cosmological theory with any sort of scientific rigor, and I never expect to.

But I wonder what would make you enter a conversation about a God if he didn't apply to you? What draws people to talk God, whether you believe, don't believe, or claim not to care?

I enjoy discussing the various topics within metaphysics, and I thought it worthwhile of my time to clarify why the abstraction of God is an unnecessary step in considering how humanity came to be here.

Are we that simple to believe that there must be something greater without viable, visible and indisputable proof? Is it the search for God what will cause mans greatest achievements and or disappointments? We need something to strive for or we may stop working towards some sort of end?

You aren't coherent in this paragraph. If you intended to express doubt over man's capacity to philosophize without involving God, you are patently mistaken, though given that such a vast majority of the world's population subscribes to some religious doctrine, the concept of God is salient enough to verse oneself in debate over its validity.

We are here.. I believe, at least. And calling this all just chance.. Personally believing that we're an accident or a certainty, is much more far-fetched then believing in a creator.

If you were to believe we don't exist as entities, I wouldn't have responded. A certain objectivity is assumed when entering into discussion. Regarding the feasibility of **** sapiens arising as a species, I would direct you to the theory of evolution, and if you are a proponent of intelligent design and irreducible complexity, further exchanges between us are unwarranted. I've no intellectual respect for those who willfully remain illiterate of science.

[Fugean]

I generally refrain from dissection, but I'll bite.



The topic of this thread is whether or not God could have created the fundamental laws of the universe, ultimately leading to the evolution of **** sapiens. If one were to express a genuine belief that a pink unicorn humped a tree and ejaculated the universe, would you linger long in discussion with that individual before rejecting his or her assertion? Logically, it is utter shit, and the described entity is an unnecessary step beyond the big bang. That is, a point of singularity from which the universe expanded.

I don't waste much time on crackpot ideas, particularly when far more cohesive theories of the universe's origin exist, based in naturalistic cosmology. I wonder about those, primarily. I've yet to cross a deistic or theistic cosmological theory with any sort of scientific rigor, and I never expect to.



I enjoy discussing the various topics within metaphysics, and I thought it worthwhile of my time to clarify why the abstraction of God is an unnecessary step in considering how humanity came to be here.



You aren't coherent in this paragraph. If you intended to express doubt over man's capacity to philosophize without involving God, you are patently mistaken, though given that such a vast majority of the world's population subscribes to some religious doctrine, the concept of God is salient enough to verse oneself in debate over its validity.



If you were to believe we don't exist as entities, I wouldn't have responded. A certain objectivity is assumed when entering into discussion. Regarding the feasibility of **** sapiens arising as a species, I would direct you to the theory of evolution, and if you are a proponent of intelligent design and irreducible complexity, further exchanges between us are unwarranted. I've no intellectual respect for those who willfully remain illiterate of science.

If i were smart, this is what i would have said >.>

[CyanIdesOfMarch]

I generally refrain from dissection, but I'll bite.



The topic of this thread is whether or not God could have created the fundamental laws of the universe, ultimately leading to the evolution of **** sapiens. If one were to express a genuine belief that a pink unicorn humped a tree and ejaculated the universe, would you linger long in discussion with that individual before rejecting his or her assertion? Logically, it is utter shit, and the described entity is an unnecessary step beyond the big bang. That is, a point of singularity from which the universe expanded.

I don't waste much time on crackpot ideas, particularly when far more cohesive theories of the universe's origin exist, based in naturalistic cosmology. I wonder about those, primarily. I've yet to cross a deistic or theistic cosmological theory with any sort of scientific rigor, and I never expect to.



I enjoy discussing the various topics within metaphysics, and I thought it worthwhile of my time to clarify why the abstraction of God is an unnecessary step in considering how humanity came to be here.



You aren't coherent in this paragraph. If you intended to express doubt over man's capacity to philosophize without involving God, you are patently mistaken, though given that such a vast majority of the world's population subscribes to some religious doctrine, the concept of God is salient enough to verse oneself in debate over its validity.



If you were to believe we don't exist as entities, I wouldn't have responded. A certain objectivity is assumed when entering into discussion. Regarding the feasibility of **** sapiens arising as a species, I would direct you to the theory of evolution, and if you are a proponent of intelligent design and irreducible complexity, further exchanges between us are unwarranted. I've no intellectual respect for those who willfully remain illiterate of science.

Very well said, particularly the part about the Creator being an unnecessary step, that's what I've been trying to get across this entire time.

[[LoD] EE]

As intelligent as you make your self sound it seems like you've just given up wondering. God does not apply. Wonderful. Now you can live the rest of your life being no more than pain, pleasure and children.

But I wonder what would make you enter a conversation about a God if he didn't apply to you? What draws people to talk God, whether you believe, don't believe, or claim not to care?

Are we that simple to believe that there must be something greater without viable, visible and indisputable proof? Is it the search for God what will cause mans greatest achievements and or disappointments? We need something to strive for or we may stop working towards some sort of end?

We are here.. I believe, at least. And calling this all just chance.. Personally believing that we're an accident or a certainty, is much more far-fetched then believing in a creator.

Nunz, you are far to focused on you and this planet.

Representing a narrow "keyhole" view all the way to the visible horizon of the universe, the HDF image covers a speck of sky 1/30th the diameter of the full Moon. Each and every one of these specks is a galaxy with BILLIONS of stars. Approx. 3000 galaxies in this picture. If .0001% of those stars were able to hold life and 1% of those intelligent life, there is the possibility of hundreds of thousands perhaps millions of earth like planets out there.

http://www.spacetelescope.org/images/screen/opo0428b.jpg

Expand your mind, dont lock it up for eternity with religious beliefs.

[Gloomrender]

Dear God!

Why are you all trying to convince a simple minded fool with bad tattoos all over his body that his sky daddy doesn't exist? Pointless! It's like trying to bounce light off a black hole, folks.

[BlysterEB]

20 years ago we had super nintendo and now we have xbox 360

Im sure in hundreds of thousands of years we will of expanded beyond earth.

I beg to differ. Expanding beyond Earth means you're inferring that humans will exist forever, infinity. That's just beyond unreasonable & far from logical or rationale.

It makes no sense that we are unique, considering the vast size of the universe & the concept of infinite time. There would have to be countless iterations of beings similar or even identical to us. And sadly, none of them has ever visited us. It appears the universe & all it's occupants are ignorant to our existance. And if they have never found the means to "expand beyond their worlds", then it's rediculous to think we're some how special & will achieve what no other could.

Not to mention, if humans were to become advanced or evolved enough to exist forever, we'd surely figure out how to travel through time & jump between different realities & planes of existence. Yet again, for some reason though, we've never been visited by any uber evolved time travelers.

Sorry, I don't mean to be a doomsday theorist, but I thinks it's more rational that we will simply stop existing at some point.

[ZeroCool]

I beg to differ. Expanding beyond Earth means you're inferring that humans will exist forever, infinity. That's just beyond unreasonable & far from logical or rationale.

It makes no sense that we are unique, considering the vast size of the universe & the concept of infinite time. There would have to be countless iterations of beings similar or even identical to us. And sadly, none of them has ever visited us. It appears the universe & all it's occupants are ignorant to our existance. And if they have never found the means to "expand beyond their worlds", then it's rediculous to think we're some how special & will achieve what no other could.

Not to mention, if humans were to become advanced or evolved enough to exist forever, we'd surely figure out how to travel through time & jump between different realities & planes of existence. Yet again, for some reason though, we've never been visited by any uber evolved time travelers.

Sorry, I don't mean to be a doomsday theorist, but I thinks it's more rational that we will simply stop existing at some point.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kw8dcb8iKSM

[CyanIdesOfMarch]

I beg to differ. Expanding beyond Earth means you're inferring that humans will exist forever, infinity. That's just beyond unreasonable & far from logical or rationale.

It makes no sense that we are unique, considering the vast size of the universe & the concept of infinite time. There would have to be countless iterations of beings similar or even identical to us. And sadly, none of them has ever visited us. It appears the universe & all it's occupants are ignorant to our existance. And if they have never found the means to "expand beyond their worlds", then it's rediculous to think we're some how special & will achieve what no other could.

Not to mention, if humans were to become advanced or evolved enough to exist forever, we'd surely figure out how to travel through time & jump between different realities & planes of existence. Yet again, for some reason though, we've never been visited by any uber evolved time travelers.

Sorry, I don't mean to be a doomsday theorist, but I thinks it's more rational that we will simply stop existing at some point.

I'd have to disagree. For one, even if an alien civilization was only a few hundred years ahead of us they could be near infinitely far away with the ability to colonize other planets near by them but unable to find/contact/travel to us. They could have originated at an earlier state of the universe, traveled to other planets and became thousands or millions of years more advanced than us but perished before we existed. Maybe they have visited in ways we have not noticed because they are so much more advanced or maybe they simply observed. We don't know the desires or abilities of advanced civilizations so we can not impose our own perception and idea of technology on them.

Maybe time travel is not possible, maybe it is and we haven't figured it out because it is extremely far down the tech tree, or maybe we do find out how and we are intelligent enough at that point not to go back and mess with the past. Maybe traveling to the past does not affect the future and thus when they do travel back here to interact with them they'd have to come exactly into this very second in time, do you understand?

Basically what I'm saying is there are just far too many possibilities to write off the idea of cross-world colonization for our species or others past or present.

[Xinnro]

http://unfunnytruthaboutsanta.ytmnd.com/

^Relevant to this thread

[Early Grace]

Quote from the television show House, House who does not believe in god or an afterlife makes this quote in response to someone saying something about how they can't imagine this life meaning anything without an afterlife.

"I'd like to think that this life isn't just a test"

[Attau]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kw8dcb8iKSM

Hah - I like that way this guy thinks.

[Nunz]

EE;3790676']Nunz, you are far to focused on you and this planet.

Representing a narrow "keyhole" view all the way to the visible horizon of the universe, the HDF image covers a speck of sky 1/30th the diameter of the full Moon. Each and every one of these specks is a galaxy with BILLIONS of stars. Approx. 3000 galaxies in this picture. If .0001% of those stars were able to hold life and 1% of those intelligent life, there is the possibility of hundreds of thousands perhaps millions of earth like planets out there.

http://www.spacetelescope.org/images/screen/opo0428b.jpg

Expand your mind, dont lock it up for eternity with religious beliefs.

It's all just for sake of conversation, man. I don't study my beliefs, kneel to a cross or read any holy text. My God is Science, Math, conversation... the list just goes on and on. I was a Deist before I knew what Deism was. The fact is I wouldn't call my self a Deist if part of the core fundamentals weren't expanding your mind and soul... And conversation is a great way to do that. Just exchanging ideas and thoughts. Im not trying to convince anyone or even care to... because I know my relationship with my God is personal and could never be understood by anyone else. Sometimes I just like to know what makes the people around me tick.

I haven't slept for awhile so I'll post later again later. I haven't really had a chance to think about any replies to me other than this one.

[Nunz]

Nunz you can probably gain some significant insight into your own mind by rereading your post a few times.

Realize that you are saying life would be, for a lack of a better word, lame if a creator didn't exist. You therefore desperately want there to be a God in order to fully satisfy the needs of your mind; You need there to be more than the general banality of human life on Earth due to the potential of your consciousness. If, suddenly, you became fully aware of the universe and knew that no such God existed, you would feel your existence was utterly pointless.

Sadly, this does not mean there is a God.

Before you regress, understand that as you reach this place, you will fall into misery and that is ok. You will want to just shake your head and go back to the delusions that protected you. Dont. The misery is temporary.

When you finally come to terms with reality, suddenly everything is incomprehensibly more amazing and beautiful as you can appreciate life and the universe simply as it is. No longer will you have the eternal nagging fear that the basis of your life is a man-made fabrication. You have become the master of your own reality.

Good luck.

That's a point I was making. Just opening a door. Glad you came in.


PS Spike, I absolutely believe in evolution and that we have are and always will be evolving.

[CyanIdesOfMarch]

It's all just for sake of conversation, man. I don't study my beliefs, kneel to a cross or read any holy text. My God is Science, Math, conversation... the list just goes on and on. I was a Deist before I knew what Deism was. The fact is I wouldn't call my self a Deist if part of the core fundamentals weren't expanding your mind and soul... And conversation is a great way to do that. Just exchanging ideas and thoughts. Im not trying to convince anyone or even care to... because I know my relationship with my God is personal and could never be understood by anyone else. Sometimes I just like to know what makes the people around me tick.

I haven't slept for awhile so I'll post later again later. I haven't really had a chance to think about any replies to me other than this one.

That is a really weak and submissive response... You are just going to surrender with the excuse that you don't care enough to think about your own beliefs? Your relationship with "God" is nothing more than your relationship with an imaginary friend at this point, you fail to assert any effort into understanding or rationalizing the universe and have passively grown to accept a magical being as your answer to questions too complex for your brain to think about.

Oh well at least you aren't giving money to a Church.

[Nunz]

That is a really weak and submissive response... You are just going to surrender with the excuse that you don't care enough to think about your own beliefs? Your relationship with "God" is nothing more than your relationship with an imaginary friend at this point, you fail to assert any effort into understanding or rationalizing the universe and have passively grown to accept a magical being as your answer to questions too complex for your brain to think about.

Oh well at least you aren't giving money to a Church.

Dude im sitting here with one eye open trying to get my self up to go put on sin city and fall asleep.

I havent slept since well before the last large post I made.


Idk.. like 30 hours or so.. lay off eh?

Edit If youd like me to go into my personal beliefs I will because I havent talked about them much if at all here. Other than offering you a religion to /google so you may understand that Im not in this conversation to argue religion, that's just dumb.

I dont even feel like finishing this post. Im going to bed.

[magoo34]

Evolution is God. And vice-versa.


I'm a Deist.

I am s Deist too:)

[Paralda]

Well, there is no god, so no.

[Gloomrender]

I am s Deist too:)

Deism is just as dumb as Christianity. It's kind of like a diet version of Koolaid. You're still drinking Koolaid.

[Bamboopanda]

Why is this so hard for some people to understand?

Because that would require thought. And the vast majority of people refuse/cannot/dont want to think about even the most mundane things and simply 'trust' what they are told.

It's one of the reasons salesmen make so much more than most people and politicals can garner support for wars not on defensive grounds and such. Idiots, we are surrounded by em every day. Who knows, the guy talking to you right now could be one! :ohno:

[Ungraylessness]

As these kinds of threads get longer, they tend to get stupider with only stupid people sticking around to argue their points for the nine or tenth time.