Scientific/Philosophical/Religious Debate.

[BooshnigBomb]

Ho the one! you are a very stoned one you are!
~WhY WaS MaRiJuAnA pUt On ThE eArTh?~
:shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock:

 

[Xenon]

Now, it may seem as if I am some infidel-hating zealot, but actually, I am one of the least spiritual people you can meet. I just don't understand how such a complex system could work without a divinity... the way I see it, we should be a mistake, because supersymmetry would have denoted that an equal ammount of matter and antimatter be created, and that the universe would be a bleak void of radiation.

 

[AlejandroX]

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 misunderstood me completely. Read it again and again if necessary.

You are really good at jumping to conclusions. No religion regards followers are Automations that is something YOU made up.

Once again: You are mistaken. Perhaps next time I should use smaller words. The situation is hypothetical. Read it again.

Why not, that is the intent of moral life to sort out the good from the evil.

I am beginning to lose faith in this analysis. At second glance, your response is too immature and fallacious to even address. Re-read my entire post very carefully.

 

[AlejandroX]

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.

My god (or lack of)! If your previous post wasn't bad enough to cause your dismissal in the minds of readers, this one surely will.

"Albert Einstein believed in God. Do you think you're cleverer than him?"

Einstein did once comment that "God does not play dice [with the universe]". This quotation is commonly mentioned to show that Einstein believed in the Christian God. Used this way, it is out of context; it refers to Einstein's refusal to accept some aspects of the most popular interpretations of quantum theory. Furthermore, Einstein's religious background was Jewish rather than Christian.

A better quotation showing what Einstein thought about God is the following:

"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings."

Einstein recognized Quantum Theory as the best scientific model for the physical data available. He did not accept claims that the theory was complete, or that probability and randomness were an essential part of nature. He believed that a better, more complete theory would be found, which would have no need for statistical interpretations or randomness.

So far no such better theory has been found, and much evidence suggests that it never will be.

A longer quote from Einstein appears in "Science, Philosophy, and Religion, A Symposium", published by the Conference on Science, Philosophy and Religion in Their Relation to the Democratic Way of Life, Inc., New York, 1941. In it he says:

The more a man is imbued with the ordered regularity of all events the firmer becomes his conviction that there is no room left by the side of this ordered regularity for causes of a different nature. For him neither the rule of human nor the rule of divine will exists as an independent cause of natural events. To be sure, the doctrine of a personal God interfering with natural events could never be refuted [italics his], in the real sense, by science, for this doctrine can always take refuge in those domains in which scientific knowledge has not yet been able to set foot.

But I am convinced that such behavior on the part of representatives of religion would not only be unworthy but also fatal. For a doctrine which is to maintain itself not in clear light but only in the dark, will of necessity lose its effect on mankind, with incalculable harm to human progress. In their struggle for the ethical good, teachers of religion must have the stature to give up the doctrine of a personal God, that is, give up that source of fear and hope which in the past placed such vast power in the hands of priests. In their labors they will have to avail themselves of those forces which are capable of cultivating the Good, the True, and the Beautiful in humanity itself. This is, to be sure, a more difficult but an incomparably more worthy task...

Einstein has also said:

It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.

The above quote is from a letter Einstein wrote in English, dated 24 March 1954. It is included in "Albert Einstein: The Human Side", edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, and published by Princeton University Press. Also from the same book:

I do not believe in immortality of the individual, and I consider ethics to be an exclusively human concern with no superhuman authority behind it.

 

[moemakki]

How can you deny the existence of God when he has revealed so much to us through the Jewish, Christian and Muslim scriptures? He has revealed what has happened in the past, what will happen in our present, and what the Future still holds for us. He granted miracles to mere men. He gave Prophet Moses the ability to split the oceans, he gave Prophet Solomon the ability to speak with nature, he gave Prophet Abraham the ability to breath life into a bird crafted of clay, he gave Prophet Jesus the ability to heal the sick, to breath life into clay birds as Abraham did, to make the dead living, and he granted Prophet Muhammad a sight into the highest level of heaven after he took Prophet Muhammad around the whole world in one night.

Have you read my post, Miracles of the Qur’an?

How then can your heart be so sealed? How can you be so deaf, dumb, and blind that you are so deluded from the truth?

 

[ratfink]

You misunderstood me completely. Read it again and again if necessary.

Once again: You are mistaken. Perhaps next time I should use smaller words. The situation is hypothetical. Read it again.

I am beginning to lose faith in this analysis. At second glance, your response is too immature and fallacious to even address. Re-read my entire post very carefully.

You were making the conclusion that Because God is perfect he would seek perfection in his creations. As you put is "Dissatisfaction is a product of imperfection, thus a perfect God would be totally satisfied with a static existence" The truth of the matter is that the is largely static, that is why we can have laws of scicence, the winds blow the same way they did before, volcanoes will still errupt etc etc.

It is clearly not hypocrical, you jump to conclusions. You make cardhouse arguments. I attacked the base of your argument and the cardhouse fell.

Riiight, If you cannot defend your points you insult the author Very clever. It seems to me that you are the one who needs to grow up.

 

[ratfink]

My god (or lack of)! If your previous post wasn't bad enough to cause your dismissal in the minds of readers, this one surely will.

Your Ability to cut and paste amazes me, but in the source of your information you fail to looks at things subjectively.

Lets look at some Enstien Quotes:

"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 minds. That deeply emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible Universe, forms my idea of God."

Quoted in the New York Times obituary April 19, 1955


Everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe-a spirit vastly superior to that of man.... In this way the pursuit of science leads to a religious feeling of a special sort, which is indeed quite different from the religiosity of someone more naive.

Letter to a child who asked if scientists pray, January 24, 1936; Einstein Archive 42-601

'Raffiniert ist der Herrgott aber boshaft ist er nicht.'
'Subtle is the Lord, but malicious He is not'

'Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.'

That is good for starters.

 

[Dalius]

My opinion: Religion is just a scam.

 

[Xenon]

Nothing that god creates can be perfect, this breaks the laws of thermodynamics on entropy.

 

[AlejandroX]

Nothing that god creates can be perfect, this breaks the laws of thermodynamics on entropy.

Nobody has said anything about perfect creations! I am using hypothetical reasoning to illustrate the absurdity of the concept at hand. Don't confuse ratfink's stupidity with any of my views.

 

[AlejandroX]

Now, it may seem as if I am some infidel-hating zealot, but actually, I am one of the least spiritual people you can meet. I just don't understand how such a complex system could work without a divinity... the way I see it, we should be a mistake, because supersymmetry would have denoted that an equal ammount of matter and antimatter be created, and that the universe would be a bleak void of radiation.

Motion towards complexity is the natural order of things. It is no more bewildering than than the law of gravity.

 

[AlejandroX]

How can you deny the existence of God when he has revealed so much to us through the Jewish, Christian and Muslim scriptures? He has revealed what has happened in the past, what will happen in our present, and what the Future still holds for us. He granted miracles to mere men. He gave Prophet Moses the ability to split the oceans, he gave Prophet Solomon the ability to speak with nature, he gave Prophet Abraham the ability to breath life into a bird crafted of clay, he gave Prophet Jesus the ability to heal the sick, to breath life into clay birds as Abraham did, to make the dead living, and he granted Prophet Muhammad a sight into the highest level of heaven after he took Prophet Muhammad around the whole world in one night.

Have you read my post, Miracles of the Qur’an?

How then can your heart be so sealed? How can you be so deaf, dumb, and blind that you are so deluded from the truth?

There is a reason that nobody, save me, has even attempted to address this response. We are discussing rationality and logic while you seem hung up on interpretation. You can not quote from a source's teachings if it is the source's vailidy that we are debating. Oh, and I think it would be interesting if you would point some of your own arguments at yourself. I'm sure there are readers that are perceiving you as deaf, dumb, blind, and deluded. No offense.

 

[AlejandroX]

You were making the conclusion that Because God is perfect he would seek perfection in his creations. As you put is "Dissatisfaction is a product of imperfection, thus a perfect God would be totally satisfied with a static existence" The truth of the matter is that the is largely static, that is why we can have laws of scicence, the winds blow the same way they did before, volcanoes will still errupt etc etc.

It is clearly not hypocrical, you jump to conclusions. You make cardhouse arguments. I attacked the base of your argument and the cardhouse fell.

Riiight, If you cannot defend your points you insult the author Very clever. It seems to me that you are the one who needs to grow up.

Hypothetical not hypocritical. Please just sit down. You're embarrassing yourself.

 

[AlejandroX]

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?)

lol. I have to admit that that individual is an example of quantity vs quality. There are books and books about vampires and unicorns-many with illustrations. You're impressively perceptive.

 

[AlejandroX]

My god (or lack of)! If your previous post wasn't bad enough to cause your dismissal in the minds of readers, this one surely will.

Your Ability to cut and paste amazes me, but in the source of your information you fail to looks at things subjectively.

Lets look at some Enstien Quotes:

"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 minds. That deeply emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible Universe, forms my idea of God."

Quoted in the New York Times obituary April 19, 1955


Everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe-a spirit vastly superior to that of man.... In this way the pursuit of science leads to a religious feeling of a special sort, which is indeed quite different from the religiosity of someone more naive.

Letter to a child who asked if scientists pray, January 24, 1936; Einstein Archive 42-601

'Raffiniert ist der Herrgott aber boshaft ist er nicht.'
'Subtle is the Lord, but malicious He is not'

' :twisted: Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.'

That is good for starters.

Einstein is speaking metaphorically. I suggest you quiet yourself before you incur the wrath of my analytical, insightful, and biting criticism. You won't be able to stand up to it. Now please silence yourself. You are detracting from the more intelligent argumentation.

 

[ratfink]

Einstein is speaking metaphorically. I suggest you quiet yourself before you incur the wrath of my analytical, insightful, and biting criticism. You won't be able to stand up to it. Now please silence yourself. You are detracting from the more intelligent argumentation.

He attacked Athism directly. Might want to read some of his work before opening your mouth:

Albert Einstein - The Human Side, Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, Princeton University Press, 1979.

 

[ratfink]

Hypothetical not hypocritical. Please just sit down. You're embarrassing yourself.

Yet you offer no proof, you expect us to take your word for things. Your ideas are full of holes, more so then even them most fundementalist of religion. Personaly I find you arrogant at best, you have only successfully managed to make yourself look like an ass with Ad holem remarks. Lean to debate before opening your mouth. You arn't worth anyone's time.

 

[ratfink]

You can not quote from a source's teachings if it is the source's vailidy that we are debating.

Suggest you stop quoting Athism.org then

 

[Nemesis]

I see this going on forever. This is an age old debate that will never end. Athiests will stick to their side, Christians, Catholics, Judaists(hope thats spelled right) and Muslims will stick to theirs. People tend to take up a belief system much like their upbringing.
I was raised without a Religion, and dont believe in a God. Some of my friends were brought up in very Religious families and they believe in a God.
When it comes down to cold hard proof I ask them to prove to me that a god exists with physical evidence, and they of me ask I prove one doesn't exist. Which of coarse I cannot do, because for me proof is a physical thing that can be sensed. But for them proof exists in other forms. I will probably never agree with my friends, and they will probably never agree with me.
The way I see it, neither side of this debate will be able to sway the other in this matter. :?

 

[d_pet_vet_seeker]

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?)

lol. I have to admit that that individual is an example of quantity vs quality. There are books and books about vampires and unicorns-many with illustrations. You're impressively perceptive.

ooh, wait you took what I said literally. Subtlety is an art. alejandro, seriously, elitism does tend to weaken your argument. it's much more effective if you attack the arguments themselves, not the arguer :!: Guess what, Hawking's .pdf was too much for my computer to handle, it froze it. The universe does NOT have tendencies towards order, it has tendencies towards disorder (remember entropy from chemistry class? "the degree of disorder" the "level of randomness") the universe is always going towards disorder. when a carbohydrate or hydrocarbon molecule breaks down, more randomness is created, and randomness can be passed on to other objects or molecules in the area. though energy can be niether created nor destroyed, it can change form from a more stable state to a less stable state, and this is the tendency of the universe. This is what makes it so shocking to scientists that we have evolved from elements, and that is why many scientists (besides the ones you quote) believe in God. { I miss chemistry. though many people switched out teh second semester because it was "too hard" and went to an easier teacher, I think we learned more in that class. and at least he didn't have a blatant ego disorder.} oops, there go the thoughts from my brain to my fingers again, its like they have no off switch. Do you mean evolutionary, that organisms are constantly adapting to their environment? gee, the laws of thermodynamics seem to be contradicting the theory of evolution here, so how do we eplain it? in that evolution has come so far that the laws of thermodynamics no longer apply? No, I don't think so. How about that evolution deals with larger organisms, and that thermodynamics is specific to the chemical breakdown? (nature abhors a vacuum, you know. gasses will take up as much space as they can) ok I better stop typing before I lose myself again.