Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8942 total)
33 online now:
Lammy, PaulK, ringo, Tangle, Thugpreacha (AdminPhat) (5 members, 28 visitors)
Newest Member: LaLa dawn
Post Volume: Total: 863,826 Year: 18,862/19,786 Month: 1,282/1,705 Week: 88/446 Day: 88/64 Hour: 3/17


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why'd you do it that way, God?
Sky-Writing
Member (Idle past 3440 days)
Posts: 162
From: Milwaukee, WI, United States
Joined: 03-12-2009


Message 46 of 137 (541457)
01-03-2010 6:35 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by greyseal
01-03-2010 1:11 PM


Re: stolen with glee
"According to science, the universe is HUGE, and we are but a mere speck."

But then "Science" is no less biased or based on hope and faith than the Pope. Science has "Faith" that a majority of "lab coats" will agree that they have followed a good process and that all these white coats will agree with the conclusions drawn from the data. But valid conclusions can be swept under the rug and ignored if they don't fit the biases of the majority.

To suggest we are a "mere speck" is not accurate and shows a huge ego. According to "Science" the universe is infinite. That means we are so small that we don't actually exist in the grand scheme of things. In fact, "Science" is nothing and knows nothing about nothing compared to the infinite amount of universe outside of what we know.

Ahh, but that would be going too far. Science isn't ready to admit that we know nothing. That doesn't leave room for the man-ego to boast that science knows just about all that there is to know.

Yet, I just illustrated that we know less than nothing. Especially about the infinite that we don't know. That's why there must be a Creator. Because if there isn't, then we know nothing at all.

But if there is, then we aren't just less than a speck. Then we are actually the reason for the rest to exist. And clearly we still don't know everything there is to know.

But at least we can relax and look forward to being with The One who does.

Carl Sagan seems like such a pleasant fellow. I wonder if his three wives have the same opinion? They didn't seem too happy. Being a Pot-smoking Stoner, I would think he'd be easier to get along with. What a great drug-induced smile....eh?

Edited by -Sky-, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by greyseal, posted 01-03-2010 1:11 PM greyseal has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by Thugpreacha, posted 01-03-2010 7:19 PM Sky-Writing has responded
 Message 56 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-03-2010 10:19 PM Sky-Writing has responded
 Message 110 by greyseal, posted 01-06-2010 2:49 PM Sky-Writing has not yet responded

  
Thugpreacha
Member
Posts: 13043
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 47 of 137 (541469)
01-03-2010 7:19 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by Sky-Writing
01-03-2010 6:35 PM


Re: stolen with glee
Is it any less egotistical to believe in a Creator who lifts humanity up as His "special" creation over every other single known and unknown lifeform in the known universe? Going even further, is it not egotistical to believe that only certain folks are saved and the rest are forever lost??

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Sky-Writing, posted 01-03-2010 6:35 PM Sky-Writing has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by Sky-Writing, posted 01-03-2010 7:40 PM Thugpreacha has not yet responded

  
jasonlang
Member (Idle past 1692 days)
Posts: 51
From: Australia
Joined: 07-14-2005


Message 48 of 137 (541470)
01-03-2010 7:29 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Meldinoor
10-03-2009 4:24 AM


Have you read or come across the ideas of James N Gardners book "Biocosm"? I obtained a copy of this book and it's a great read! Not sure I can fully accept his 'Selfish Biocosm' thesis, but it's perhaps the most mind-blowing and ambitious physical hypotheses I've ever come across!

I've lent it to a number of friends, both atheist ad deist. Most approached it with knowing smirk, but once they were into it became highly enthusiastic about the depth of the ideas.

He looks at evidence for the universe being "bio-friendly" eg physics paprameters which appear to be specifically tweaked for evolution of life and intelligence to occur, and hypothesises what this would mean in a cyclic universe.

His idea - an evolutionary process like the one we see around us could have occured in the previous universe cycle(s), and over billions of years of technological development the inhabitants gained the knowledge and control over inanimate matter to be able to 'tweak' the physical parameters themselves.

So in this theory the universe itself is not designed so much as it is terraformed, and evidence for this terraforming is indistuinguishable from evidence for design.

His idea is naturalistic and also darwinian in that terraformed universes are subsequently more likely to give rise to intelligent life which can further terraform and guarantee the stability of the universe, his title 'self biocosm' is drawn from Dawkins 'selfish gene'. So universes with intelligent life have a selective advantage, yet there isn't any mystical sense to the theory.

Edited by jasonlang, : No reason given.

Edited by jasonlang, : had authors middle initial wrong. D'oh!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Meldinoor, posted 10-03-2009 4:24 AM Meldinoor has not yet responded

    
Sky-Writing
Member (Idle past 3440 days)
Posts: 162
From: Milwaukee, WI, United States
Joined: 03-12-2009


Message 49 of 137 (541473)
01-03-2010 7:40 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by Thugpreacha
01-03-2010 7:19 PM


Re: stolen with glee
" Is it any less egotistical to believe in a Creator who lifts humanity up as His "special" creation over every other single known and unknown lifeform in the known universe? Going even further, is it not egotistical to believe that only certain folks are saved and the rest are forever lost?? "

- When cornered - change the subject
- Putting something or somebody in charge is common. Anything with a brain has appreciation for the value of having a brain in charge. Or should.
- The lost can always count on Reincarnation to pull them from the lost soul pile and stick them into a bug or something.

Why would non-believers want to spend all eternity worshiping God? No fun for them. THAT would be Hell, right?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Thugpreacha, posted 01-03-2010 7:19 PM Thugpreacha has not yet responded

  
jasonlang
Member (Idle past 1692 days)
Posts: 51
From: Australia
Joined: 07-14-2005


Message 50 of 137 (541474)
01-03-2010 7:47 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Izanagi
10-03-2009 1:56 PM


Re: God is Lawful Good
And then there's the fact that knowing what the outcome might be is different than seeing it happen before your eyes. Perhaps God started from the Big Bang just to see what kind of life would arise.

An omnipotent and omniscient God could have created the universe as-is 5 minutes ago with all memories etc intact.

For such a God, imagining something would be as good as creating it (perhaps he is imagining us right now).

Therefore he could have already divined the lifetimes of all sentient beings worthy of going to Heaven and actually created them in Heaven to start with. No need for hell or suffering, no need to separate the wheat from the chaff when you can create the wheat full-grown with false memories of the life they would have led, had you actually created them. We can only divine that he did things the way he did because he wanted them to happen like this, so if there is a Hell it's because God wanted there to be a Hell.

Edited by jasonlang, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Izanagi, posted 10-03-2009 1:56 PM Izanagi has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by Sky-Writing, posted 01-03-2010 9:28 PM jasonlang has not yet responded

    
jasonlang
Member (Idle past 1692 days)
Posts: 51
From: Australia
Joined: 07-14-2005


Message 51 of 137 (541476)
01-03-2010 8:34 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by Sky-Writing
10-06-2009 10:38 PM


Re: True science nonsense again
Take our moon for example. All of the brightest minds in the world have reached no conclusion on how it was formed. And that's after hand delivery of 100's of pounds of surface and core samples. No, if the group you call "Science" can't reach agreement on how our moon was formed with samples in their hands, I'm not going to give them ANY credit for theories on how anything else came into being.

Scientists in general seem to be happy with the impact hypothesis, and as the scientist near the end of the video states it's in all the textbooks and I haven't heard any reputable scientist really disputing the model or having an alternative (maybe I'm wrong though). Also, it's well backed up by computer simullations originally developed to model impacts between Saturns moons, but if there's anything less than total 100% agreement by "All of the brightest minds in the world" you won't accept the theory and say we must posit magic as the only rational cause?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ibV4MdN5wo0&NR=1
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giant_impact_hypothesis

BTW : The rings of Saturn seem to be about 100 million years old, not 1 billion, so what you say is a a straw man argument about the age of the moons being wrong.

Edited by jasonlang, : No reason given.

Edited by jasonlang, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Sky-Writing, posted 10-06-2009 10:38 PM Sky-Writing has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by Sky-Writing, posted 01-03-2010 9:11 PM jasonlang has not yet responded

    
Sky-Writing
Member (Idle past 3440 days)
Posts: 162
From: Milwaukee, WI, United States
Joined: 03-12-2009


Message 52 of 137 (541482)
01-03-2010 9:11 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by jasonlang
01-03-2010 8:34 PM


Re: True science nonsense again
(maybe I'm wrong though)

Correct. The subject is avoided not because of consensus but because all the current theories have about the same amount of support and about the same amount of contradictory evidence. It's really quite an embarrassment (for "Science") to have so much hard data and no solid conclusions.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by jasonlang, posted 01-03-2010 8:34 PM jasonlang has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by Coyote, posted 01-03-2010 9:35 PM Sky-Writing has not yet responded
 Message 55 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-03-2010 10:10 PM Sky-Writing has responded

  
Sky-Writing
Member (Idle past 3440 days)
Posts: 162
From: Milwaukee, WI, United States
Joined: 03-12-2009


Message 53 of 137 (541486)
01-03-2010 9:28 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by jasonlang
01-03-2010 7:47 PM


Re: God is Lawful Good
"An omnipotent and omniscient God could have created the universe as-is 5 minutes ago with all memories etc intact."

No, that would have bypassed the option for man to choose Sin....which he did choose.

You know the old saying ... If you love something, set it free.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by jasonlang, posted 01-03-2010 7:47 PM jasonlang has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-03-2010 10:20 PM Sky-Writing has responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 395 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 54 of 137 (541489)
01-03-2010 9:35 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by Sky-Writing
01-03-2010 9:11 PM


Re: True science nonsense again
It's really quite an embarrassment (for "Science") to have so much hard data and no solid conclusions.

As opposed to religious belief, which has no hard data and dogmatic conclusions?

Thanks, I'll take science any day.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Sky-Writing, posted 01-03-2010 9:11 PM Sky-Writing has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 8.0


Message 55 of 137 (541493)
01-03-2010 10:10 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by Sky-Writing
01-03-2010 9:11 PM


Re: True science nonsense again
Correct. The subject is avoided ...

No.

... not because of consensus but because all the current theories have about the same amount of support and about the same amount of contradictory evidence. It's really quite an embarrassment (for "Science") to have so much hard data and no solid conclusions.

Scientists are not embarrassed by behaving rationally.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Sky-Writing, posted 01-03-2010 9:11 PM Sky-Writing has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by Sky-Writing, posted 01-04-2010 5:26 AM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 8.0


Message 56 of 137 (541495)
01-03-2010 10:19 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by Sky-Writing
01-03-2010 6:35 PM


Re: stolen with glee
"According to science, the universe is HUGE, and we are but a mere speck."

But then "Science" is no less biased or based on hope and faith than the Pope. Science has "Faith" that a majority of "lab coats" will agree that they have followed a good process and that all these white coats will agree with the conclusions drawn from the data. But valid conclusions can be swept under the rug and ignored if they don't fit the biases of the majority.

To suggest we are a "mere speck" is not accurate and shows a huge ego. According to "Science" the universe is infinite. That means we are so small that we don't actually exist in the grand scheme of things. In fact, "Science" is nothing and knows nothing about nothing compared to the infinite amount of universe outside of what we know.

Ahh, but that would be going too far. Science isn't ready to admit that we know nothing. That doesn't leave room for the man-ego to boast that science knows just about all that there is to know.

Yet, I just illustrated that we know less than nothing. Especially about the infinite that we don't know. That's why there must be a Creator. Because if there isn't, then we know nothing at all.

But if there is, then we aren't just less than a speck. Then we are actually the reason for the rest to exist. And clearly we still don't know everything there is to know.

But at least we can relax and look forward to being with The One who does.

Carl Sagan seems like such a pleasant fellow. I wonder if his three wives have the same opinion? They didn't seem too happy. Being a Pot-smoking Stoner, I would think he'd be easier to get along with. What a great drug-induced smile....eh?

Well, that was incoherent. But you seem to be taking the assurance of scientists that they don't know everything as meaning that you know "less than nothing".

You may, indeed, know less than nothing --- indeed, your post appears to confirm this hypothesis. But this disability does not follow from the fact that scientists say that they don't know everything. It seems, in fact, to follow from you swallowing a load of half-baked tripe.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Sky-Writing, posted 01-03-2010 6:35 PM Sky-Writing has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by Sky-Writing, posted 01-04-2010 5:46 AM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 8.0


Message 57 of 137 (541496)
01-03-2010 10:20 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by Sky-Writing
01-03-2010 9:28 PM


Re: God is Lawful Good
"An omnipotent and omniscient God could have created the universe as-is 5 minutes ago with all memories etc intact."

No, that would have bypassed the option for man to choose Sin....

You would in fact have that option whether the world was magicked into existence five minutes ago or six thousand years ago, since your capacity to exercise your free will has nothing to do with the age of the Earth.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Sky-Writing, posted 01-03-2010 9:28 PM Sky-Writing has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by Sky-Writing, posted 01-04-2010 5:35 AM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Sky-Writing
Member (Idle past 3440 days)
Posts: 162
From: Milwaukee, WI, United States
Joined: 03-12-2009


Message 58 of 137 (541514)
01-04-2010 5:26 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by Dr Adequate
01-03-2010 10:10 PM


Re: True science nonsense again
"Scientists are not embarrassed by behaving rationally. "

LOL! You've not been around Scientists! I've seen them escorted by security out of the building after throwing chairs. I've seem them escorted out for lieing, cheating, and even stealing. Just like the rest of the population. Rational thought is very far from the scientific method.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-03-2010 10:10 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-04-2010 8:19 AM Sky-Writing has responded

  
Sky-Writing
Member (Idle past 3440 days)
Posts: 162
From: Milwaukee, WI, United States
Joined: 03-12-2009


Message 59 of 137 (541515)
01-04-2010 5:35 AM
Reply to: Message 57 by Dr Adequate
01-03-2010 10:20 PM


Re: God is Lawful Good
"....since your capacity to exercise your free will has nothing to do with the age of the Earth."

Yes it does. Not that I care about our observed age of the earth, just that history, as told in the scriptures, is important in that it tells what has taken place. At a certain time in the past, we chose sin, so God had to do something to make up for our choice. We chose Death. So God had to fix that problem. That's actually when time started. The clock didn't start ticking till we choose not to be in fellowship with God. Before that, time didn't exist... As we know it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-03-2010 10:20 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by Parasomnium, posted 01-04-2010 6:17 AM Sky-Writing has responded
 Message 64 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-04-2010 8:29 AM Sky-Writing has responded

  
Sky-Writing
Member (Idle past 3440 days)
Posts: 162
From: Milwaukee, WI, United States
Joined: 03-12-2009


Message 60 of 137 (541517)
01-04-2010 5:46 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by Dr Adequate
01-03-2010 10:19 PM


Re: stolen with glee
"Well,thatwasincoherent.Butyoseemtobetaking the assurance of scientists that they don't know everything as meaning that you know "less than nothing".You mayindeed,knowlessthan nothing-indeed, your post appears to confirm this hypothesis.But this disability does not follow from the fact that scientists say that they don't know everything.It seems, in fact, to follow from you swallowing a load of half-baked tripe. "

Well you cleared that up. Anyway, I'll restate:

If the REST of the universe is INFINITE,
then the SPECK of information that we know is INFINITELY SMALL.

(Ego's have a hard time with this idea.)

.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-03-2010 10:19 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-04-2010 8:20 AM Sky-Writing has responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019