RunUO Community
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Scientific/Philosophical/Religious Debate.
- Thread starter moemakki
- Start date
Mortis
Knight
Naw I learned about that way before I would have needed to. 
In the biological sence.
Then I had to suffer through the early days of sex education when it was new in public schools
And worst of all being raised CATHOLIC. Needless to say that soured me on religion. Glad I was never an "Altered boy" :shock: He He Altar Boy.
In the biological sence.Then I had to suffer through the early days of sex education when it was new in public schools
And worst of all being raised CATHOLIC. Needless to say that soured me on religion. Glad I was never an "Altered boy" :shock: He He Altar Boy.
Mortis
Knight
Back to real topic Evelution VS Creation.
If I had to choose between the two I would cast my vote for evelution.
Because creation discounts any knowlege that dinosaurs even existed and we all know they did as we have fossils.
As far as the bible goes GOD made the heavens and the earth in seven days and on the earth day rested. Then god created Adam. Then Eve then all else around us. So then were do dinosaurs fit in that briliant deduction?
I never heard GOD then created giant reptiles got tired of them .killed them all and then made Adam.
I have seen fossils of lizards with wings the medium between the current day bird and the lizard. Even a lizard with wings and a few feathers.
Was Adam a Cro-Magnum Man? Or Peking Man? We have those fossils too.
Cro-magnum man was more than ape but not quite homo-sapian as we are today.
The religiose aspect of creation denotes all we have found as fossils.
Religion being a concept and fossils being a fact. I tend to belive what the fossils show over a neato story some one wrote to gain power over the ignorant. Something easy to pull over on the ignorant supersticiose Troglodytes.
If I had to choose between the two I would cast my vote for evelution.
Because creation discounts any knowlege that dinosaurs even existed and we all know they did as we have fossils.
As far as the bible goes GOD made the heavens and the earth in seven days and on the earth day rested. Then god created Adam. Then Eve then all else around us. So then were do dinosaurs fit in that briliant deduction?
I never heard GOD then created giant reptiles got tired of them .killed them all and then made Adam.
I have seen fossils of lizards with wings the medium between the current day bird and the lizard. Even a lizard with wings and a few feathers.
Was Adam a Cro-Magnum Man? Or Peking Man? We have those fossils too.
Cro-magnum man was more than ape but not quite homo-sapian as we are today.
The religiose aspect of creation denotes all we have found as fossils.
Religion being a concept and fossils being a fact. I tend to belive what the fossils show over a neato story some one wrote to gain power over the ignorant. Something easy to pull over on the ignorant supersticiose Troglodytes.
A
AlejandroX
Guest
Rather than going into specifics on the Bible's teachings or even the chemical makeup of Earth, I will divulge my assertation that God(as defined by major monotheistic religions) cannot exsist simply because the definition is contradictory and impossible in nature. First, lets assert our premises.
[code:1]
According to major theistic belief, God (is):
Perfect
Has no flaws
Has no needs
Has no wants
Is in all ways good
What he creates is good at the time of its creation, but is capable of becoming evil over time, else evil would not exist.
Ever-present (exists simultaneously in every point in space and every point in time)
Transcendental (exists separately from the material universe)
Omnipotent
Created the Universe
Universe (n) 1. All existing things regarded as a whole. All that exists. 2a. The Earth, 2b. The human race.
Can create matter and energy
Can create non-physical (supernatural) substances
Can create life in both of the above mediums
Will Destroy the World
The Universe will remain; only the Earth will be destroyed.
Ability to destroy matter, energy and supernatural substances is implied but not stated
Omniscient
Has infinite wisdom
Has infinite knowledge
Has infinite perception
Demands Service
Has a chosen people
Grants free will, but demands total obedience
Is forgiving of the repentant, but merciless to the sinner
Will sit in judgment of all souls
Knows all of the deeds of his creations, and thus is the only person fit to judge his creations
Will cast guilty souls into Hell
Will take righteious souls to Heaven[/code:1]
Perfection:
It is said that God is perfect. If this is the case, he cannot have flaws. He has no needs. Nor can he have any wants, for to suggest otherwise implies that he is not satisfied with his current state. Dissatisfaction is a product of imperfection, thus a perfect God would be totally satisfied with a static existence; that is to say, he would change nothing.
Yet, according to our definition, he changes everything. He creates. He spends six days doing so. Granted that to a timeless being six days would be instantaneous, but still, he is not static. This is a contradiction. An all-powerful being that neither needs nor wants to change does not change. Therefore, either God is not perfect, or he did not create the Universe.
In the latter case, either the Universe does not exist at all (a statement which we have strong reason to doubt is true) or the Universe came about without the aid of God. In either case, Gods existence becomes irrelevant; He has no importance to us for our existence, nor does our existence matter to him. Also, an unchanging, perfect being wouldn't be bothered by us at all (no interventions on his behalf, since he is satisfied with everything as it is).
In the former case, it was an imperfect being that created the universe. This point can be further illustrated by what God creates. He creates servants. All three monotheistic faiths considered here claim their members as Gods faithful servants. Yet a perfect being would need no servants, even if he created them, and the servants would soon find themselves with nothing to do. Their existence would be pointless.
Further still, God need not instill free will upon his servants. They need only be automations. They need not even be self-aware. Why would they be granted self-awareness, then? Why would they be granted the ability to disobey? Does god require some means to alleviate boredom, so he grants us an ability to be unpredictable? If God is omniscient, there is no such thing as unpredictability. Also, a perfect god would need no alleviation from boredom. Does God want his creations to entertain him with their conflicts? That again suggests a desire, and also adds maliciousness to Gods personality, which suggests a fault. A perfect being has no faults.
Thus, we have disproved the first supposition in the definition of God. The being cannot be both perfect and the creator. Since we have disproved a part of the definition, the whole definition is at fault. The being described cannot exist. God cannot exist.
Creator:
In an effort to save God from non-existence, let us say, for the moment, that disproving one part of the definition simply refines the definition so that God can exist without being subject to that part of the definition. That is to say, once a part is disproved, it is dropped, and we redefine God to suit the remaining points in the old definition. God is no longer both perfect and creator, but he could still be the creator of the Universe without being perfect. Let us examine this point.
Looking at the definition of the Universe, we see that there are three definitions for the term Universe. The first definition is that the Universe is all that exists. That is to say, if it isnt part of the Universe, it cannot exist. We will ignore the second and third definitions of the Universe, which define the term as meaning the Earth and the human race, respectfully. We can dismiss the third right away since there is more to the monotheistic interpretation of the Universe than the human race. The second can also be rejected, as there was more to the monotheistic Universe that just the Earth. According to the book of Genesis, versions of which are accepted by Christians, Jews and Muslims, God also created the stars, the Sun and the moon. In short, he created all there is. This is the first definition of Universe, so it is the one we will pay attention to.
Our definition of God says that he created and rules the Universe. It is impossible for him to be a part of the Universe, since that would suggest that he created himself. He cannot have created himself because he would have to already exist in order to create himself. Thus, God cannot be ever-present, as defined above. He can only be transcendental if he is the creator. Which is fine, since transcendentalism and ever-presence within the universe are contradictory anyway. You have to be either/or or neither, you cant be both.
Having said that, we now have two objects: God and the Universe. The Universe is all there is, or everything that exists. Anything that is not part of the Universe, therefore, does not exist. God is not part of the Universe. He therefore does not exist.
Incidentally, this also makes another part of the definition impossible; Gods transcendental nature. So God could be neither ever-present nor transcendental if he were the creator. He cant exist in the universe, and he cant exist out of it. Therefore, he cant exist.
Our definition has failed another analysis. We can choose to declare, once again, that God therefore cannot exist, or we can continue with our attempts to save him by again dropping the disproved point and redefining what God is. Just once more, I shall attempt to give God a chance.
Omnipotent:
So God is neither perfect nor is he the creator. Can he still be omnipotent? Let us consider the following.
If God is to exist, he must either BE the Universe or be a PART of the Universe. In the former case, he can still be omnipresent, since by being the Universe he is automatically everywhere at once. In the latter, he looses his omnipresence. This limits him, since he needs to be able to travel to places that he currently does not occupy, and thus he looses his omnipotence, since someone with infinite power could by default be everywhere at once. So for God to be omnipotent he must be the Universe.
Now, if God is the Universe, he is observable, since the Universe is observable. The Universe also behaves in predictable ways, which humans have described in the scientific laws of physics, chemistry, biology, and others. Since these behaviors are true in all inertial frames of reference (all perspectives regardless of relative velocity), which indicates a finite Universe, Gods behavior is limited to those behaviors and to the resources of a finite Universe. This is contrary to the idea of omnipotence. While he would still be vastly powerful, especially to the eyes of a human, he is not all-powerful.
Gods definition has thus been whittled away even further. Again we can declare God a fictional being, or we can continue to refine the definition and attempt to save him.
Sorry. Three strikes. Gods out.
Conclusion:
It is impossible for the monotheistic God worshipped by Christians, Jews and Muslims to exist. We are left with three possibilities; another god exists which we have yet to define, multiple gods (defined or undefined) exist, no gods exist. The most probable of these, if we are to follow Ockhams Razor (do not multiply entities unnecessarily / take the simplest explanation possible, but no simpler an explanation), is that there are no gods.
And what of the God we have debunked? He is best described as the ultimate imaginary friend, a delusional source of security for a people who find it difficult to deal with the hardship of everyday life. Yet like the child who must relinquish his fantasy friend and face the real world in order to truly mature, so to must the human race face reality if it is to mature into a truly advanced species.
[code:1]
According to major theistic belief, God (is):
Perfect
Has no flaws
Has no needs
Has no wants
Is in all ways good
What he creates is good at the time of its creation, but is capable of becoming evil over time, else evil would not exist.
Ever-present (exists simultaneously in every point in space and every point in time)
Transcendental (exists separately from the material universe)
Omnipotent
Created the Universe
Universe (n) 1. All existing things regarded as a whole. All that exists. 2a. The Earth, 2b. The human race.
Can create matter and energy
Can create non-physical (supernatural) substances
Can create life in both of the above mediums
Will Destroy the World
The Universe will remain; only the Earth will be destroyed.
Ability to destroy matter, energy and supernatural substances is implied but not stated
Omniscient
Has infinite wisdom
Has infinite knowledge
Has infinite perception
Demands Service
Has a chosen people
Grants free will, but demands total obedience
Is forgiving of the repentant, but merciless to the sinner
Will sit in judgment of all souls
Knows all of the deeds of his creations, and thus is the only person fit to judge his creations
Will cast guilty souls into Hell
Will take righteious souls to Heaven[/code:1]
Perfection:
It is said that God is perfect. If this is the case, he cannot have flaws. He has no needs. Nor can he have any wants, for to suggest otherwise implies that he is not satisfied with his current state. Dissatisfaction is a product of imperfection, thus a perfect God would be totally satisfied with a static existence; that is to say, he would change nothing.
Yet, according to our definition, he changes everything. He creates. He spends six days doing so. Granted that to a timeless being six days would be instantaneous, but still, he is not static. This is a contradiction. An all-powerful being that neither needs nor wants to change does not change. Therefore, either God is not perfect, or he did not create the Universe.
In the latter case, either the Universe does not exist at all (a statement which we have strong reason to doubt is true) or the Universe came about without the aid of God. In either case, Gods existence becomes irrelevant; He has no importance to us for our existence, nor does our existence matter to him. Also, an unchanging, perfect being wouldn't be bothered by us at all (no interventions on his behalf, since he is satisfied with everything as it is).
In the former case, it was an imperfect being that created the universe. This point can be further illustrated by what God creates. He creates servants. All three monotheistic faiths considered here claim their members as Gods faithful servants. Yet a perfect being would need no servants, even if he created them, and the servants would soon find themselves with nothing to do. Their existence would be pointless.
Further still, God need not instill free will upon his servants. They need only be automations. They need not even be self-aware. Why would they be granted self-awareness, then? Why would they be granted the ability to disobey? Does god require some means to alleviate boredom, so he grants us an ability to be unpredictable? If God is omniscient, there is no such thing as unpredictability. Also, a perfect god would need no alleviation from boredom. Does God want his creations to entertain him with their conflicts? That again suggests a desire, and also adds maliciousness to Gods personality, which suggests a fault. A perfect being has no faults.
Thus, we have disproved the first supposition in the definition of God. The being cannot be both perfect and the creator. Since we have disproved a part of the definition, the whole definition is at fault. The being described cannot exist. God cannot exist.
Creator:
In an effort to save God from non-existence, let us say, for the moment, that disproving one part of the definition simply refines the definition so that God can exist without being subject to that part of the definition. That is to say, once a part is disproved, it is dropped, and we redefine God to suit the remaining points in the old definition. God is no longer both perfect and creator, but he could still be the creator of the Universe without being perfect. Let us examine this point.
Looking at the definition of the Universe, we see that there are three definitions for the term Universe. The first definition is that the Universe is all that exists. That is to say, if it isnt part of the Universe, it cannot exist. We will ignore the second and third definitions of the Universe, which define the term as meaning the Earth and the human race, respectfully. We can dismiss the third right away since there is more to the monotheistic interpretation of the Universe than the human race. The second can also be rejected, as there was more to the monotheistic Universe that just the Earth. According to the book of Genesis, versions of which are accepted by Christians, Jews and Muslims, God also created the stars, the Sun and the moon. In short, he created all there is. This is the first definition of Universe, so it is the one we will pay attention to.
Our definition of God says that he created and rules the Universe. It is impossible for him to be a part of the Universe, since that would suggest that he created himself. He cannot have created himself because he would have to already exist in order to create himself. Thus, God cannot be ever-present, as defined above. He can only be transcendental if he is the creator. Which is fine, since transcendentalism and ever-presence within the universe are contradictory anyway. You have to be either/or or neither, you cant be both.
Having said that, we now have two objects: God and the Universe. The Universe is all there is, or everything that exists. Anything that is not part of the Universe, therefore, does not exist. God is not part of the Universe. He therefore does not exist.
Incidentally, this also makes another part of the definition impossible; Gods transcendental nature. So God could be neither ever-present nor transcendental if he were the creator. He cant exist in the universe, and he cant exist out of it. Therefore, he cant exist.
Our definition has failed another analysis. We can choose to declare, once again, that God therefore cannot exist, or we can continue with our attempts to save him by again dropping the disproved point and redefining what God is. Just once more, I shall attempt to give God a chance.
Omnipotent:
So God is neither perfect nor is he the creator. Can he still be omnipotent? Let us consider the following.
If God is to exist, he must either BE the Universe or be a PART of the Universe. In the former case, he can still be omnipresent, since by being the Universe he is automatically everywhere at once. In the latter, he looses his omnipresence. This limits him, since he needs to be able to travel to places that he currently does not occupy, and thus he looses his omnipotence, since someone with infinite power could by default be everywhere at once. So for God to be omnipotent he must be the Universe.
Now, if God is the Universe, he is observable, since the Universe is observable. The Universe also behaves in predictable ways, which humans have described in the scientific laws of physics, chemistry, biology, and others. Since these behaviors are true in all inertial frames of reference (all perspectives regardless of relative velocity), which indicates a finite Universe, Gods behavior is limited to those behaviors and to the resources of a finite Universe. This is contrary to the idea of omnipotence. While he would still be vastly powerful, especially to the eyes of a human, he is not all-powerful.
Gods definition has thus been whittled away even further. Again we can declare God a fictional being, or we can continue to refine the definition and attempt to save him.
Sorry. Three strikes. Gods out.
Conclusion:
It is impossible for the monotheistic God worshipped by Christians, Jews and Muslims to exist. We are left with three possibilities; another god exists which we have yet to define, multiple gods (defined or undefined) exist, no gods exist. The most probable of these, if we are to follow Ockhams Razor (do not multiply entities unnecessarily / take the simplest explanation possible, but no simpler an explanation), is that there are no gods.
And what of the God we have debunked? He is best described as the ultimate imaginary friend, a delusional source of security for a people who find it difficult to deal with the hardship of everyday life. Yet like the child who must relinquish his fantasy friend and face the real world in order to truly mature, so to must the human race face reality if it is to mature into a truly advanced species.
A
AlejandroX
Guest
*removed annoying double-post. i apologize*
S
soundwav
Guest
thats a good point but i dont really define god like that, tho i do have many conterdicting ideas, i tend to look at god as another race who is for the most part peacful and goes around creating other races and laying down some basic rules to go by. i beleave all true religions are based on the same thing but with views of these events. i think angels are 1 of the many races out there and they watch over us to make sure that we are trying to move forward yet they try not to mess up ower progress by getting involved to much in everyday life stuff. one day i think we will have a chance to speak with them in person but i dont think that will happen any time soon.
as a side note i think long ago we had the technology to talk to these beings but most of that is lost because i beleave that most of the humans left earth and moved on. most people dont think that we ever had technology as advanced as we do now but did you know the egyptions <-spelling had batterys that they used to electroplate (gold plating) jewlery?
the myans <-spelling had a clock that ran untill year 2000 and it was very accurate and these are just 2 things that we know they had think about all the things we take for granted and then imagen 2000 or more years on earth with out us and then someone finding 2 of those things i wonder if they would see us as not having very much technology compaired to them. just a thought
as a side note i think long ago we had the technology to talk to these beings but most of that is lost because i beleave that most of the humans left earth and moved on. most people dont think that we ever had technology as advanced as we do now but did you know the egyptions <-spelling had batterys that they used to electroplate (gold plating) jewlery?
the myans <-spelling had a clock that ran untill year 2000 and it was very accurate and these are just 2 things that we know they had think about all the things we take for granted and then imagen 2000 or more years on earth with out us and then someone finding 2 of those things i wonder if they would see us as not having very much technology compaired to them. just a thought
A
AlejandroX
Guest
The problem is that adding unecessary variables is fallacy. If the universe can be adequetely explained by science (by that i mean that there is no strong evidence suggesting that there is any intelligent and omnipotent force out there) the simplest and most likely conclusion is that our current scientific model is much more likely while the exsistance of God is not. The simplest answer is usually the correct one.
d_pet_vet_seeker
Wanderer
God
Ouch! Lemme guess, grave dissappointment left you wanting to have an "imaginary friend" to rely upon who just wasn't there for you? Bad things happen. That doesn't mean God doesn't exist. God does not exist to make people's lives fairy tales. that's what fairy tales and fantasy are for. God gives people hope to solve their problems and progress in life beyond what they were born with. Someone explained it to me that God saw that what he made was good and stepped back to watch it all, be as it may, with evil included just to make things interesting, and give his creatures options. Just because your definition of wants depends upon a lacking entity doesn't mean that a higher power would have wants because he lacked an entity. Man was made in God's image, shares in God's love of puzzles and games. (Nice rationalization, but rationalizations can be false. Ever heard of breatharianism? An elaborate rationalization based on the falsity that humans can exist without food.)
And accepting the "simplest answer because it is usually the correct one" doesn't mean that it necesarily is the correct one. The scientists of DNA patterns of inheritance once thought that parental chromosomes were transcribed and replicated then joined back together with other parental chromasomes. Scientists then figured out that they didn't work that way, and a whole old chromosome is reattached with a whole new chromosome. (an example of simplest explanation not being correct) Besides, God was the creator, the being that defied our notion of the whole "what came first" question, because he was before we existed to ask that question. You know the whole "big bang theory"? what if that served to create the God that you are debating? God does not need to travel because he is omnipresent. He is the universe, and therefore created all the laws long before humans decided to decipher them and equate them to numbers. God is omnipotent, but he gave people free will to do what they wanted with. Ever heard the expression "God helps those who help themselves?" People have been granted the power to act as they desire, believe as they desire, live as they desire. However, that does not mean there are not consequences. Even if one lived outside of a Christian - influence society, there would still be consequences for actions. (Not to eat would cause starvation, not to protect oneself would result in death, etc, etc.) That's within human cognition and agrees with the laws of the universe. Wai --- what? did alejandro fall into the trap of "its either a, b, c, or d?" This has become a semantics arguement. Arguing the existence of God is like arguing the existence of people.. which has been done. Does that mean that they don't exist? No, I don't think so. God exists because there's always going to be a question of what started all the laws of physics, and God answers that question. Maybe some peole don't believe they need to pray, that's fine but because they don't need him doesn't mean he isn't there for the other people that do need him.
Ouch! Lemme guess, grave dissappointment left you wanting to have an "imaginary friend" to rely upon who just wasn't there for you? Bad things happen. That doesn't mean God doesn't exist. God does not exist to make people's lives fairy tales. that's what fairy tales and fantasy are for. God gives people hope to solve their problems and progress in life beyond what they were born with. Someone explained it to me that God saw that what he made was good and stepped back to watch it all, be as it may, with evil included just to make things interesting, and give his creatures options. Just because your definition of wants depends upon a lacking entity doesn't mean that a higher power would have wants because he lacked an entity. Man was made in God's image, shares in God's love of puzzles and games. (Nice rationalization, but rationalizations can be false. Ever heard of breatharianism? An elaborate rationalization based on the falsity that humans can exist without food.)
And accepting the "simplest answer because it is usually the correct one" doesn't mean that it necesarily is the correct one. The scientists of DNA patterns of inheritance once thought that parental chromosomes were transcribed and replicated then joined back together with other parental chromasomes. Scientists then figured out that they didn't work that way, and a whole old chromosome is reattached with a whole new chromosome. (an example of simplest explanation not being correct) Besides, God was the creator, the being that defied our notion of the whole "what came first" question, because he was before we existed to ask that question. You know the whole "big bang theory"? what if that served to create the God that you are debating? God does not need to travel because he is omnipresent. He is the universe, and therefore created all the laws long before humans decided to decipher them and equate them to numbers. God is omnipotent, but he gave people free will to do what they wanted with. Ever heard the expression "God helps those who help themselves?" People have been granted the power to act as they desire, believe as they desire, live as they desire. However, that does not mean there are not consequences. Even if one lived outside of a Christian - influence society, there would still be consequences for actions. (Not to eat would cause starvation, not to protect oneself would result in death, etc, etc.) That's within human cognition and agrees with the laws of the universe. Wai --- what? did alejandro fall into the trap of "its either a, b, c, or d?" This has become a semantics arguement. Arguing the existence of God is like arguing the existence of people.. which has been done. Does that mean that they don't exist? No, I don't think so. God exists because there's always going to be a question of what started all the laws of physics, and God answers that question. Maybe some peole don't believe they need to pray, that's fine but because they don't need him doesn't mean he isn't there for the other people that do need him.
A
AlejandroX
Guest
This is where your entire premise is wrong. You seem to be under the assumption that time is linier. There did not have to be a start as you would conventionally think. The matter of the universe may have exsisted forever and only recently formed. Time is relative. I suggest you read Hawking or Einstein if you seek a greater understanding of spacetime. The problem many people have is trying to rationalize the birth of our universe by human, linier, logic. Just because our brains perceive stimuli and arrange according to chronological order does not mean that is how the entire universe functions. A greater scientific knowledge would help you understand the fallacy in this particular creation argument.
I have to agree with AlejandroX, I have always seemed to agree with the scientific proof behind things. I do however have a question for anyone who can answer it for me. If there is a God, and his followers/people love care about him. Why does he not check in on them in physical form, or take a physical form so as to put an end to this age old debate. I for one, would believe in a God if a being came to me and I could see, hear, feel or smell their presence. Don't get me wrong I still would need further proof than any person saying they are God. I would instantly believe if I saw anything I could not scientifically prove demonstrated to me like turning a rock into a cat or something along those lines. I guess after typing this I kind of fit into the Agnostic category, oh well post a reply soon.
d_pet_vet_seeker
Wanderer
Really Alejandro, Hawkings talks about the spacetime thing? 
I've always wondered about that but I could never find anything on it. K, now my interest is piqued. :idea: I'll have to look him up. (uh oh, is this going to take a long time?) 
However, I can still find room for God in my universe, if not patience for the hypocrisies of religion. (Why is there no room? what about the Qu'aran person? Don't you believe any of it? Even with the illustrations?) 
I've always wondered about that but I could never find anything on it. K, now my interest is piqued. :idea: I'll have to look him up. (uh oh, is this going to take a long time?) However, I can still find room for God in my universe, if not patience for the hypocrisies of religion. (Why is there no room? what about the Qu'aran person? Don't you believe any of it? Even with the illustrations?) I'll give my input to it too!
I'm not a religius person ,
i trust only myself!
Religion exist in order to make us feel better in very hard times when we cannot afford thinks on our own we don't have the strength too!
Also thinks that sometimes we cannot explain in order to not coming craze we explain them with our religion rules!
I'm sure that in his depths of his mind no one believes that the god tha 1 day created that the second that the 3rd that etc......
Yes we are weak so we create religions in order to help us prevail throw the difficulties of life and not get despaired!
Once again i'm sorry for the many typeing mistakes!
I'm not a native english speaker!
I'm not against with people that blindly believe because in that way they live in their good world without facing manay problems!
Maybe they are right , maybe thinking to much about the mysteries of life is not a good think , i guess we will never know for sure!
I'm not a religius person ,
i trust only myself!
Religion exist in order to make us feel better in very hard times when we cannot afford thinks on our own we don't have the strength too!
Also thinks that sometimes we cannot explain in order to not coming craze we explain them with our religion rules!
I'm sure that in his depths of his mind no one believes that the god tha 1 day created that the second that the 3rd that etc......
Yes we are weak so we create religions in order to help us prevail throw the difficulties of life and not get despaired!
Once again i'm sorry for the many typeing mistakes!
I'm not a native english speaker!
I'm not against with people that blindly believe because in that way they live in their good world without facing manay problems!
Maybe they are right , maybe thinking to much about the mysteries of life is not a good think , i guess we will never know for sure!
Xenon said:
IANAP but this depends if you buy Quantum Theory. There have been experiments that have shown that subatomic particals (photons) are influenced by an invisible force. One of the explinations behind this is that there are multiple timelines or multiple dimentions of time a layered on top of eachother.
Oh and the expereiment was fireing a single photon at a sensor. the light will show the same interference properties of multiple photons. I will see if I can dig up a link
AlejandroX said:
Just because a being is perfect doesn't mean that all creations will be perfect. No religions states that this universe or even the planet we live on is perfect, only that God is. You are jumping to conclusions by saying that everything he makes is indeed Perfect or even intended to be so. As a mater of fact the human world is largely regarded as very imperfect. If it was not intended then there would be no nead for hevan as it would exsist in the moral realm.
You are really good at jumping to conclusions. No religion regards followers are Automations that is something YOU made up.
Why not, that is the intent of moral life to sort out the good from the evil.
Nope
Absolutely
Jumping to conclusions
Unlikely. His motives behind creation are very clearly documented.
Sure it would if that were the case, is it? Unlikely.
Thus, we have disproved the first supposition in the definition of God. The being cannot be both perfect and the creator. Since we have disproved a part of the definition, the whole definition is at fault. The being described cannot exist. God cannot exist.
If you had proven that I would agree, however you had not so you cannot use that as evidence.
You cannot take a dictionary and hold it up to define something beyond our paradeign. A dectionary was not handed down from god it is merely how WE use words. It's like walking up to a researcher with a grade 9 text book as evidence. OUR universe is just that the mortal universe. He absolutely could have created our universe. Yes we can see only our universe but that does not mean that we are the only one.
And if I close my eyes really tight, plug my ears and nose you do not exist because I cannot see, hear, or smell you. What I am saying is that we do not have the means to "see" god. That does not mean he does not exist. Most scientests belive in Darkmatter but we do not have any way of detecting it.
You are still holding on to god being a physical thing. He is not. Think of time, Time is omipresent, time is everywhere at once and time but it is also something not confined to our universe alone.
Sure on the surface nature behaves in predictible ways, however when you get down to it Theories come and go so often that it only proves we really do not know what is going on. Sure we can give things nice names, and we can perdict certain things but we cannot model the universe because we do not understand it.
I think you are missing the point. God does not live inside the rules. He makes them.
Three strikes with no proof, or any evidence of any form save your opinion. If you want to look at it as a science this is absolutely meaningless.
Conclusion:
You fail to look beyond your own eyes to see what exactly is going on. With recent science really only finding more questions then answers and with complexity at a level that no one person can fathum I find it rather odd that one can say something doesn't exsist when we do not even know the underlying structure of the world we live in.
AlejandroX said:
Ohhhh I love this Lets use your logic for a second:
Einstein was a stark Christian. I clearly belive that he understood his own work far better then you did, yet he belived in a god. So if he was wrong in his understanding of his own work then his work must be wrong.
At any rate read this book, might find it interesting:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0802843557/102-1248350-6534558?vi=glance