Message 17 of 50 (46645) 07-21-2003 6:56 AM

Reply to: Message 1 by Miguel 07-20-2003 2:53 PM

[Added by edit for no particular reason:-
I remember a day when I encountered a Mormon missionary in
a town centre, and stood talking to him for about an hour
and half ... until the point where he said to me 'Well, I've
got to be going now, nice speaking to you.' and backed
away in a great hurry. I thought it was funny ... local
Jehovah's tend to avoid my house now too [This message has been edited by Peter, 07-21-2003]

Message 18 of 50 (46652) 07-21-2003 8:31 AM

Reply to: Message 17 by Peter 07-21-2003 6:56 AM

I think that was the first time I'd discussed religion with anyone in about a year - it doesn't come up as a day to day conversation.

Message 19 of 50 (46653) 07-21-2003 8:54 AM

Reply to: Message 13 by crashfrog 07-20-2003 9:01 PM

Basically you say that i'm reasoning backwords. I predicted your answer . And again i say, that this is not really an explanation... But i never said that the fact that the universe is fine-tuned is an absolute proof that God did it... But it makes me wonder...

[This message has been edited by Miguel, 07-21-2003]

[This message has been edited by Miguel, 07-21-2003]

[This message has been edited by Miguel, 07-21-2003]

Message 20 of 50 (46655) 07-21-2003 9:10 AM

Reply to: Message 19 by Miguel 07-21-2003 8:54 AM

But i never said that the fact that the universe is fine-tuned is an absolute proof that God did it... But it makes me wonder...
______________________

The classical understanding of what is god within most of the Eastern philosophies that god is the Absolute, the Ultimate Reality that harmonizes all dualities.

If creation is an absolute proof of that the Absolute dit it, that Absolute should also make the non-creation,as the Ultimate Reality is taken as non-dual.

What is the proof of non-creation?

Message 21 of 50 (46658) 07-21-2003 9:37 AM

Creation is only noticed by one's conscience, and so, there are different levels of creation acccording to the state of conscience.

As the Asolute is the Absolute conscience and the collective conscience, all the individual beings that are also part and parcels of that Absolute, should notice and experience these different levels ofcreation.

That philosophic school classifies 5 stages of consciousness, as follows:

1. jagrata or awaken state.

2. sandhya or dreaming state

3. suspti or deep sleep, with no dreams.

4. mugdha or swoomin state.

5. samadhi or supra-consciousnes state.

The idea given by them is that the non-dual substance termed as Brahman should harmonize creation and the different aspects of it with non-creation.

Thus, susupti is taken as the state of non-creation that harmonizes creation. And it can also be experimented by everyone, as well as creations.

Message 22 of 50 (46664) 07-21-2003 10:35 AM

Reply to: Message 4 by crashfrog 07-20-2003 3:52 PM

quote:

---

God could exist, I guess. There's nothing that, to my knowledge, prevents the existence of God. It's just my conclusion from the data that he doesn't exist at this time. So, given that there's no evidence, I'm absolutely sure that god doesn't exist - but I know I could be wrong.

---

Gosh, frog, you sound like one of us Agnostics!

Message 23 of 50 (46667) 07-21-2003 10:39 AM

Reply to: Message 6 by EndocytosisSynthesis 07-20-2003 4:50 PM

quote:

---

Crashfrog, The reason you've never found any evidence for a creator is because you're never looking for any, and if you did find some you'd deny it no matter what because you're baised towards evolution.

---

Well, wouldn't this 'evidence' be apparent to everyone if it existed?

What evidence are you talking about, anyway?

Oh, and why do you make that strange connection between not believing and god and acceptance of the evidence of evolution?

God could exist AND evolution be true, you know. It may be that your idea of god and what god can and does do is incorrect.

Message 24 of 50 (46668) 07-21-2003 10:51 AM

Reply to: Message 9 by Miguel 07-20-2003 7:44 PM

quote:

---

Well, no one as ever seem one species becoming another through Slow darwinian processes. The evidence they have is indirect...

---

...except that we have directly observed one species turning into another rather frequently.

Here's an exaple, with many more found at the link:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html

quote:

---

Three species of wildflowers called goatsbeards were introduced to the United States from Europe shortly after the turn of the century. Within a few decades their populations expanded and began to encounter one another in the American West. Whenever mixed populations occurred, the specied interbred (hybridizing) producing sterile hybrid offspring. Suddenly, in the late forties two new species of goatsbeard appeared near Pullman, Washington. Although the new species were similar in appearance to the hybrids, they produced fertile offspring. The evolutionary process had created a separate species that could reproduce but not mate with the goatsbeard plants from which it had evolved.

---

quote:

---

The same goes for God...

---

Sorry, the evidence for god is entirely subjective and individual-dependent. By contrast, anyone can look at the data in support of any scientific theory, such as the ToE.

quote:

---

However in both cases acceptance depends on your will to consider the indirect evidence. And in both cases i admit that the indirect evidende might not be an absolute proof.

---

What indirect evidence of god do you have? I mean, what specific predictions about the nature of the universe have been made wrt determining the existence of god which have been borne out?

Message 25 of 50 (46670) 07-21-2003 11:01 AM

Reply to: Message 10 by Miguel 07-20-2003 7:52 PM

quote:

---

But why are so many properties of the universe fine-tuned for life?

---

Why are you assuming that this is the case? Wouldn't it be more likely that life simply had to adjust itself to suit the pre-existing laws of the universe?

As for your first question... I'm an athiest, and I talk about God a lot. 99% of the time, it's a believer that brings the topic up, and insists on a conversation about it. (Whether directly, by attempting to convert me, or indirectly, by defending a law based on religious belief.) That's just my experience, though. Your mileage may vary.

[This message has been edited by Dan Carroll, 07-21-2003]

Message 26 of 50 (46686) 07-21-2003 12:04 PM

Reply to: Message 22 by nator 07-21-2003 10:35 AM

'As far as I can tell that's a red ball'

being different to

'I'm not sure if that is a red ball or a blue dodecahedron.'

Message 27 of 50 (46710) 07-21-2003 1:05 PM

Reply to: Message 26 by Peter 07-21-2003 12:04 PM

quote:

---

'As far as I can tell that's a red ball'

being different to

'I'm not sure if that is a red ball or a blue dodecahedron.'

---

I understand the difference, but I don't know that your example is analogous to my thoughts and crashfrog's thoughts about the existence of God.

I mean, we are both agreeing that there is no evidence for God, and he concludes that there must not be any God, yet will accept that there may be one and evidence might come forth which would cause him to accept the existence of god.

I can't see how this is substantively different from my position, which is that there is no evidence for god, but we don't know, nor can we perceive, everything. We just don't know.

I don't know if this makes Crashfrog an Agnostic or me an Atheist, thoug.

Message 28 of 50 (46726) 07-21-2003 3:39 PM

Reply to: Message 22 by nator 07-21-2003 10:35 AM

As I think I've argued before, if I sound like an agnostic, it's because there's no meaningful difference between being an agnostic and being atheist within the scientific framkework of tenativity of knowledge.

I'm basically as sure as I can be that there's no god. I think that makes me atheist even though that's not the same as absolutely sure.

Message 29 of 50 (46734) 07-21-2003 4:18 PM

Reply to: Message 28 by crashfrog 07-21-2003 3:39 PM

That's a big reason I call myself an Agnostic; I don't know. What's more, I don't think anybody knows.

I guess the difference is that I have always thought that Athiests wouldn't accept evidence for God if it came about, but Agnoostics would, but maybe this just shows my ignorance of Atheism.

Message 30 of 50 (46829) 07-22-2003 5:24 AM

Reply to: Message 27 by nator 07-21-2003 1:05 PM

To me atheism is a position statement, as is agnosticism, or
theism.

I would class you as agnostic, in the sense that you do not
come down one way or another, while crashfrog (like myself)
is an atheist -- there is no God as far as I am concerned
but hey if you can show me I'm wrong that's fine. Admitting
that you might be wrong is not the same as not having made
the belief-choice (and atheism etc. are just beleifs after-all
... it's just that mpost atheists have their reasons for
beleiving that way ... more so than 'I was brought up in
[insert religion of choice].'

Theists tend to be of the 'There IS a god, show me I'm wrong
and I'll redefine everything so that there is still a God.'