What Do You Believe

[honeyhannah]

Or what do you regard as possibilities?

[honeyhannah]

I believe in a universal energy/ mother earth/nature sort of thing.

[HerbuhLovuh]

Personally I think you have that quality. :)
But when people compliment me I always become confused.
I think possibility is a thought, but thought is a severely outdated possibility.

[brothwood]

I believe the "concept" of God was a reasonable view before we began to discover our liberal selves and that we don't have to beleive something just because someone tell us so. If the concept of God was real then wouldn't we have to applaud dictators because that what the concept of God is, he is a dictator- an unelected person who tells people what to do!

[YogaOfLove]

i think that there ultimately has to be something out there, but whos to say what it is? we had to come from something, evolution, creation, reincarination....who knows but we were at some point created no matter in what form, so there has to be something out there, and thats all i will let myself believe, because thats all that i can justify in my mind, everything else is just theories and such, i mean theres some ideas i like, but that doesnt mean that they are to be believed....:rolleyes:

too much out there

[JosieJune]

I believe in what I can see...which is nature.

Paz,
Josie

[geckopelli]

I believe in what I can see...which is nature.

I more or less agree.

[JosieJune]

I more or less agree.
You've peeked my curiosity.

Paz,
Josie

[Sera Michele]

I believe in myself, and the lives of the people in the world.

I believe in creating a good place for my children and their children's children to live.

I believe that we are no better than the rest the life in this world, we are just different.

I believe that all the wealth in the world can be found inside people, and not in material goods.

I believe that there is a chance for a god to exist...but i don't believe in the god that sends people to heaven or hell.

[geckopelli]

JJ,

Things that are real affect other things that are real in a way that produces observable consequences.

I don't have to "see" it per se, but I must be able too if I were so inclined- and so must everyone else.

[Antimatter235]

We see the universe through our ideas. That is, things appear to be structured how they are because you made a mental construct. Unless you're producing truly fresh data to improve the ideas, most of the time you're really just seeing what is recorded in your brain, ie you will never have the whole object seen in absolutely every perspective (sensing(+emotions)+thinking combos).

So there is no point staying stuck on an idea or thinking the most important thing you can do is choosing to believe in those fixed concepts or not, or wondering if what you didn't even **observe** loves you or wants you to do this and that.

Our ideas (how we see the world) govern our decisions. "scientific theories" or "religious truths" are all utimately ideas. So saying "Well science is just theories i just want the Truth, its what matters" is seriously naive. And BTW, its interchangable, you can say scientific truths (though science accept better truths) or religious theories (religion is just people who made ideas and said "this is ultimate").

Mentally one should make learning fresh ideas an habit, and not only reading books and checking if the author is true but really experimenting, creating ideas (ie experience) and methods; scientifically or not.
This said. I don't have specific personal beliefs about God except that an All-Powerful All-Knowing entity is unlikely to care about dogmas, fidelity or being moral.

[Razorofoccam]

Or what do you regard as possibilities?
Honey

There is only one answer

everything.

Occam

[geckopelli]

So there is no point staying stuck on an idea or thinking the most important thing you can do is choosing to believe in those fixed concepts or not, or wondering if what you didn't even **observe** loves you or wants you to do this and that.

.
Pure homocentricity.

"important" and "love" have no indepedant existence.

Religion has fixes ideas- science does not. Science is fluid and flexible. It describes a reality that s there for all, and doesn't requires ego.

[Antimatter235]

Yeah,
What i wanted to say is that religion is based on the delusion that it can brings "Truths" a là "what IS". That people are wrong to think that scientific knowledge, because of the saying "science is theories", is somehow disconnected to reality.

The language used in science is exact. It clearly states "observation", "interpretation", "theory", "model", "paradigm", etc. Because its how knowledge works (and in every area of life). This is a good thing because it means that whatever you think things are, is just a glimpse at the possibilities.

Actually religion mislead people into thinking that you can have ideas, like what you know trees are, that ARE reality. Its like saying that the picture of a person is the person.

Most people fall into this trap and think that "science is theories" thus not connected to reality.

[JosieJune]

JJ,

Things that are real affect other things that are real in a way that produces observable consequences.

I don't have to "see" it per se, but I must be able too if I were so inclined- and so must everyone else.
I think I got it!

Paz,
Josie

[The manticore]

I believe in what I can see...which is nature.

Paz,
Josie
that was beautiful

[themnax]

reguarding as POSSIBILITES i have to echoe occam.

i believe in not pretending to know what is not known
AND in nothing HAVING TO BE KNOWN in order to exist.

i believe i have been hugged by what i don't know
and in my heart i hug it back

i believe i don't have to give it names like "GOD" in order to do so
nor pretend to believe what people around me seem to expect each other
to in order to either.

nor is "god" or a god, the only invisible thing it is harmless to hug.
the idea of good and bad invisible things and a war between them
i've observed no evidence pointing at as being other then a human invention

=^^=
.../\...

[memo]

Solipsism works for me.

[Razorofoccam]

Mentally one should make learning fresh ideas a habit, and not only reading books and checking if the author is true but really experimenting, creating ideas (ie experience) and methods; scientifically or not.Antimater

exactly

occam

[snakeyes]

"I believe in what I can see...which is nature."


I love that. It's really refreshing. Does that mean that that's what you think God is? I mean 'nature'?, or is that unnecessarily complicating the issue?

(Occam cuts with his razor...?)

Sure, It works for me, but can't we reconcile such a belief with all the complicated mumbo jumbo of organised religion just a little bit?

'Complicated' religions take alot of flak because people don't understand them, but when you look at the origins, they usually started out with similar simple insights:

In the book of Genesis, Moses wonders what God is and God says 'I am that I am'. If God is simply 'That which is', as seems to be the case here, Is that not the same as saying 'God is nature'? (If we agree that nature is just 'that which is', or 'everything')

[neodude1212]

i believe in God.

[FreakerSoup]

But what do you regard as possibilities?

[neodude1212]

God. and nothing else.

[FreakerSoup]

And there it is.

[memo]

God. and nothing else.Cool, good luck with that.

[neodude1212]

And there it is.
what exactly were you looking for?
there was a question, i put in my answer.
im not asking you to think like me.

[FreakerSoup]

That's exactly what I was looking for, but I wasn't sure if that was what you would put.

That right there, that simple fact is the entire reason you have problems with evolution, and your biology class, and all this other stuff that scientific minds generally agree on. I would also go as far as to say that it is either the reason for or the product of your difficulties with the workings of pure logic, evidence, and proof.

[ESRUOS ENO]

I believe that were already dead and when we die we finally live....

[Okiefreak]

That's exactly what I was looking for, but I wasn't sure if that was what you would put.

That right there, that simple fact is the entire reason you have problems with evolution, and your biology class, and all this other stuff that scientific minds generally agree on. I would also go as far as to say that it is either the reason for or the product of your difficulties with the workings of pure logic, evidence, and proof.The Pope believes in God too & he desn't have a problem with Darwin.

[memo]

The Pope believes in God too & he desn't have a problem with Darwin.Does he still think birth control is a sin and that all aborted fetuses go to heaven?

[neodude1212]

That's exactly what I was looking for, but I wasn't sure if that was what you would put.

That right there, that simple fact is the entire reason you have problems with evolution, and your biology class, and all this other stuff that scientific minds generally agree on. I would also go as far as to say that it is either the reason for or the product of your difficulties with the workings of pure logic, evidence, and proof.the fact is, any assertion about our origin is a THEORY. you can throw 1000 bones at me, and it's still just a theory.

i have no problem digesting logic. yes i have problems with some of the THEORIES presented in biology class.

like i've said a million times on here, science is not understanding, but merely perception.

[hippie_chick666]

God. and nothing else.
What is the difference between your position and the position of an atheist's who says "No god, and nothing else"?

Peace and love

[neodude1212]

i didn't say there was a difference?

[FreakerSoup]

the fact is, any assertion about our origin is a THEORY. you can throw 1000 bones at me, and it's still just a theory.
Not true. Some are just guesses or assumptions. Theories are at least shown to be scientifically plausible. At least. Creationism is not a theory. Nor is ID. But you are right to say that we don't really know for sure.


i have no problem digesting logic. yes i have problems with some of the THEORIES presented in biology class.
And yet you are saying that many people are religious, and they can't all be wrong, so atheists must be wrong.

like i've said a million times on here, science is not understanding, but merely perception. Not true. Sometimes, perhaps. BUT...with our perception we can understand. A lot. Evolution, biochemistry, genetic engineering, nuclear physics, astrophysics, etc. Maybe we can't get the whole picture, but we can get as much as we can. That's all there is to do. If you really think that you can get similar understanding by sitting on your bum and thinking, go ahead. Make the scientific establishment's day.

[neodude1212]

Not true. Some are just guesses or assumptions. Theories are at least shown to be scientifically plausible. At least. Creationism is not a theory. Nor is ID. But you are right to say that we don't really know for sure.
there are many reasons for my faith that you consider logical fallicies, and yet i dont.
i feel that we live in a perfectly ordered world that could not have happened by accident. one could argue that the human body is more complex than the universe itself. hell, one could make the same arguement for a single animal cell. i could find prove of my belief in a perfectly ordered world, b/c i think everything serves a reason or purpose. incredulous? maybe. but maybe so are you when you dismiss the idea of a God.



And yet you are saying that many people are religious, and they can't all be wrong, so atheists must be wrong.
i didnt' say they can't all be wrong. im just saying that there collective faith could be seen as some kind of evidence.

Not true. Sometimes, perhaps. BUT...with our perception we can understand. A lot. Evolution, biochemistry, genetic engineering, nuclear physics, astrophysics, etc. Maybe we can't get the whole picture, but we can get as much as we can. That's all there is to do. If you really think that you can get similar understanding by sitting on your bum and thinking, go ahead. Make the scientific establishment's day.
that was kinda rude. but anyways...
i really dont think science leads to understanding. with each new perception, we just get even more deep and profound mysteries to solve.

[FreakerSoup]

there are many reasons for my faith that you consider logical fallicies, and yet i dont.
i feel that we live in a perfectly ordered world that could not have happened by accident. one could argue that the human body is more complex than the universe itself. hell, one could make the same arguement for a single animal cell. i could find prove of my belief in a perfectly ordered world, b/c i think everything serves a reason or purpose. incredulous? maybe. but maybe so are you when you dismiss the idea of a God.
Logical fallacies are not my own creation. It's not some standard I just made up, it's the way logic works. Evolution has little to do with accidents(see evolution thread). I would like (sincerely) to hear about why you think the world is perfectly ordered. The human body is part of the universe, and cannot, therefore, be more complex. The whole cannot be less complex than the part.

I don't think I dismiss the idea of god. Maybe when I'm feeling uppity, but what I will dismiss are ideas that are contrary to what we know about the universe and the way things work.

i didnt' say they can't all be wrong. im just saying that there collective faith could be seen as some kind of evidence.
That is still a logical fallacy. If you are going to make that argument, why are the faithful given more credence than the unfaithful? Is it just a question of who's in the majority? The larger population gets the "lots of people think so" argument?


that was kinda rude. but anyways...
i really dont think science leads to understanding. with each new perception, we just get even more deep and profound mysteries to solve.

I apologize if that came of as rude, I do not mean to be. However, the point I was trying to make is that there is a way in which we can gain knowledge and understanding of things. This way is science, because science can be confirmed, falsified, and is really the only way we can obtain objective knowledge.

Granted, scientific discoveries often lead to more questions. I don't see why this is a bad thing. While we may have something new which we are confused about, we have something that we know about. If there are a million mysteries in the universe and we have solved three, knowing what some others are can only be a good thing.

[Okiefreak]

Does he still think birth control is a sin and that all aborted fetuses go to heaven?I don't know about the destination of the fetuses, but I'm sure he thinks birth control by contraception (as opposed to the rythmn method, is a sin). But I'm not Catholic, so you might check with somebody else.

[neodude1212]

Logical fallacies are not my own creation. It's not some standard I just made up, it's the way logic works. Evolution has little to do with accidents(see evolution thread). I would like (sincerely) to hear about why you think the world is perfectly ordered. The human body is part of the universe, and cannot, therefore, be more complex. The whole cannot be less complex than the part.

I don't think I dismiss the idea of god. Maybe when I'm feeling uppity, but what I will dismiss are ideas that are contrary to what we know about the universe and the way things work.
well, im very post-modern in my consideration of logic. i dont think logic encompasses everything.

what i meant when i was talking about the human body, is that the human body is a universe in of itself.

like i said, i think the world is perfectly ordered because everything functions with a cause. i can't really convey what i mean with words. think transcendalist when you read my post.

That is still a logical fallacy. If you are going to make that argument, why are the faithful given more credence than the unfaithful? Is it just a question of who's in the majority? The larger population gets the "lots of people think so" argument?
i give this point up. i can't really say what i mean.




I apologize if that came of as rude, I do not mean to be. However, the point I was trying to make is that there is a way in which we can gain knowledge and understanding of things. This way is science, because science can be confirmed, falsified, and is really the only way we can obtain objective knowledge.

Granted, scientific discoveries often lead to more questions. I don't see why this is a bad thing. While we may have something new which we are confused about, we have something that we know about. If there are a million mysteries in the universe and we have solved three, knowing what some others are can only be a good thing.
well it's a good thing, but i think it's gives our heads some inflation on our perspective of who we are.

[neodude1212]

"The Universe is the Great All, and offers a paradox too great for the finite mind to grasp. As the living brain cannot conceive of a nonliving brain - although it may think it can - the finite mind cannot grasp the infinite. The prosaic fact of the universe’s existence alone defeats both the pragmatist and the romantic. Technical and scientific prowess has allowed us to chip a few splinters from the great stone pillar of reality. Yet, despite a tremendous increase in available facts, this wealth of information produces little or no insight. There are no great odes written to the wonders of artificial insemination, or to cars that run on power from the sun. Few if any seemed to have grasped the truest principle of reality : new knowledge leads always to yet more awesome mysterious. Greater physiological knowledge of the brain makes the existence of the soul less possible yet more probable by the nature of the search. The greatest mystery that the universe offers is not life but size. Size encompasses life. Size defeats us. For the fish, the lake in which he lives is the universe. What does the fish think when he is jerked up by the mouth through the silver limits of existence and into a new universe where air drowns him and the light is blue madness? Where huge bipeds with no gills stuff it into a suffocating box and cover it with wet weeds to die?"

"Or one might take the tip of a pencil and magnify it. One reaches the point where a stunning realization strikes home : The pencil-tip is not solid; it is composed of atoms which whirl and revolve like a trillion demon planets. What seems solid to us is actually only a loose net held together by gravity. Viewed at their actual size, the distances between these atoms might become leagues, gulfs, aeons. The atoms themselves are composed of nuclei and revolving electrons. One may step down further to subatomic particles. And then to what? Tachyons? Nothing? Of course not. Everything in the universe denies nothing; to suggest an ending is the one absurdity."

"If you fell outward to the limit of the universe, would you find a board fence and signs reading DEAD END? No. You might find something hard and rounded, as the chick must see the egg from the inside. And if you should peck through that shell (or find a door), what great and torrential light might shine through your opening at the end of space? Might you look through and discover our entire universe is but part of one atom on a blade of grass? Might you be forced to think that by burning a twig you incinerate an eternity of eternities? That existence rises not to one infinite but to an infinity of them?

"Perhaps you saw what place our universe plays in the scheme of things - as no more than an atom in a blade of grass. Could it be that everything we can perceive, from the microscopic virus to the distant Horsehead Nebulae, is contained in one blade of grass that may have existed for only a single season in an alien time-flow? What if that blade should be cut off by a scythe? When it begins to die, would the rot seep into our own universe and our own lives, turning everything yellow and brown and desiccated? Perhaps it’s already begun to happen.

"Think how small such concept of things make us! If a God watches over it all, does he actually mete out justice for a race of gnats among an infinitude of races of gnats? Does His eye see the sparrow fall when the sparrow is less than a speck of hydrogen floating disconnected in the depth of space? And if He does see....what must the nature of such a God be? Where does He live? How is it possible to live beyond infinity?

"Imagine the sands of the desert and imagine a trillion universes - not worlds but universes - encapsulated in each grain of that desert; and within each universe an infinity of others. We tower over these universes from our pitiful grass vantage point; with one swing of your boot you may knock a billion billion worlds flying off into darkness, in a chain never to be completed."

"Size."

[BobbyDylan]

we do not have the capability to know any sort of truth regarding the nature of our existance. but we have come up with very comforting conclusions through organized religion, and how powerfully it has brainwashed us. to each his own. but whatever created us wont punish us for not blindly commiting to a cult like institution.

[memo]

i dont think logic encompasses everything.Well, that's pretty much the end of the debate then. It's impossible to reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into.

[themnax]

Well, that's pretty much the end of the debate then. It's impossible to reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into.that is of course the problem with debate as objective rather then means.

besides who is anyone to reason or any other way persuade anyone in or out of how they see anything. as long as there not using it as an excuse to cause harm. when they do, that's what we have laws for and need to have laws not be dependent on what anyone believes or doesn't, but only on the reduction of real harm and suffering.

on the other hand, i do aggree with what i see as one point of that statement, the senselessness of pretending to know what is not known.

that there might be a god or gods or something close enough for government work, is entirely sufficient, without having to pretend to know what color of shoe laces makes it happiest to see us wear.

what IS important is shairing a genuine concern unconditionally, for the kind of conditions everyone has to experience, and how each consideration we actually live by, ultimately influences those conditions.

=^^=
.../\...

[Okiefreak]

"The Universe is the Great All, and offers a paradox too great for the finite mind to grasp. As the living brain cannot conceive of a nonliving brain - although it may think it can - the finite mind cannot grasp the infinite. ...
"Think how small such concept of things make us! If a God watches over it all, does he actually mete out justice for a race of gnats among an infinitude of races of gnats? Does His eye see the sparrow fall when the sparrow is less than a speck of hydrogen floating disconnected in the depth of space? And if He does see....what must the nature of such a God be? Where does He live? How is it possible to live beyond infinity?

"Imagine the sands of the desert and imagine a trillion universes - not worlds but universes - encapsulated in each grain of that desert; and within each universe an infinity of others. We tower over these universes from our pitiful grass vantage point; with one swing of your boot you may knock a billion billion worlds flying off into darkness, in a chain never to be completed."

"Size."This is well said. Where did it come from? Of course, the implication is that not only science but all human thought is limited. Some writers argue, based on evolutionary theory, that it's very unlikely humans will ever be able to answer the improtant questions about the ultimate nature of reality, because we didn't evolve brains for that purpose. If true, wouldn't all of this be a powerful argument for agnosticism?

[dreamagain]

At the end of the day,
both evolutionary theory and the belief in a divine creator require a certain degree of faith.

Something had to originally exist to create life which breaks a scientific law- something had to come from nothing, or something had to always be. The human mind does not think infinitely, we are finite. So the concept of something always existing is hard to be defined in human terms.

Despite what is in the science books, Darwin's theory is a religion of it's own kind. His theory breaks basic scientific laws, without being able to answer creation beyond the creatures on this planet. Creationism is able to answer more questions, albeit simplistically-- but it's just as sensible.

Evolution takes the leap of faith to say that non-living things can and did create life,
while failing to answer the question of the non-living matter's creation. Additionally evolution breaks a scientific law by stating that things left alone can improve. This is obviously untrue. Science tell us, things left alone tend to break down (second law of thermodynamics). Thus throwing out the science-side argument altogether, because evolution is refuted by pre-existing law.

So my argument is, that evolution is a religion to. A religion against religion, which is understandable and ignorant. Creationism doesn't try to answer all the questions because it states that humanity is not the ultimate being and doesn't have the ultimate answers, it may be a leap of faith, but at least it sells itself as being what it is.

The argument that Evolution is the truth and those who believe differently are ignorant is wrong, closed-minded and frankly annoying. Science, which is presented as being what Evolution is all about, does as more than enough to disapprove Darwin's theories.

This is my view, feel free to poke holes in it.

[FreakerSoup]

At the end of the day,
both evolutionary theory and the belief in a divine creator require a certain degree of faith.
One certainly more than the other.
If you leave a chunk of cheese out overnight and it's gone in the morning, would you say that some mystical being you can't see took it as an offering, or would you say it was mice? Both require faith, because you weren't there.

Something had to originally exist to create life which breaks a scientific law- something had to come from nothing, or something had to always be. Please remind me of these laws and where evolution says something came from nothing.

Despite what is in the science books, Darwin's theory is a religion of it's own kind. His theory breaks basic scientific laws, without being able to answer creation beyond the creatures on this planet. Creationism is able to answer more questions, albeit simplistically-- but it's just as sensible.
Evolution:
1. Is not a religion of its own kind. It has masses of empirical evidence.
2. Does not break scientific laws, and is not a reply to creationism. In fact, if you understand biology, evolution is quite intuitive.

Creation:
1. Breaks MANY scientific laws.
2. Can't answer these questions in a way other than "god did it."
3. Cannot account for the evidence that points to evolution.
4. Is only "sensible" if you have inherited that belief.



Evolution takes the leap of faith to say that non-living things can and did create life,
while failing to answer the question of the non-living matter's creation.
Evolution is not concerned with that.

Additionally evolution breaks a scientific law by stating that things left alone can improve. This is obviously untrue. Science tell us, things left alone tend to break down (second law of thermodynamics). Thus throwing out the science-side argument altogether, because evolution is refuted by pre-existing law.
That is completely false. Sure, things left alone tend to break down. So what is left alone? Certainly not the Earth. We have a constant influx of a great amount of energy from the sun and from the Earth's hot center. Evolution states that as we reproduce and accumulate mutations (from the sun, generally), there will be mistakes in our DNA. Some will be bad, some may reduce the amount of DNA an individual ends up with, but some increase it, and some are good.



So my argument is, that evolution is a religion to. A religion against religion, which is understandable and ignorant. Creationism doesn't try to answer all the questions because it states that humanity is not the ultimate being and doesn't have the ultimate answers, it may be a leap of faith, but at least it sells itself as being what it is.
That is a pretty weak argument.



The argument that Evolution is the truth and those who believe differently are ignorant is wrong, closed-minded and frankly annoying. No offense, but you are obviously quite ignorant about evolution. You seem to have gleaned your views from various anti-evolution websites, which are filled with silly arguments like the second law of thermodynamics. It doesn't take a biologist to understand evolution, and I'm willing to bet that any scientist worth their weight in salt would be able to refute every point on there.


Science, which is presented as being what Evolution is all about, does as more than enough to disapprove Darwin's theories.
Again, no it doesn't. Your view comes from a very basic misunderstanding about the science and about evolution.

[Okiefreak]

.

[Okiefreak]

Additionally evolution breaks a scientific law by stating that things left alone can improve. This is obviously untrue. Science tell us, things left alone tend to break down (second law of thermodynamics). Thus throwing out the science-side argument altogether, because evolution is refuted by pre-existing law.
For sites explaining why evolution doesn't violate the second law of thermodynamics, see:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo.html (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo.html)
http://www.charleswood.ca/reading/evolution.php
http://www.2ndlaw.com/evolution.html

In summary, the 2nd law applies to closed systems, and life is not a closed system.
"Creationism is able to answer more questions, albeit simplistically-- but it's just as sensible"."So my argument is, that evolution is a religion too". "Sensible"? Maybe. But it isn't based on a theory that can generate empirically verifiable or (more importantly) refutable hypotheses. Evloution, as a scientific theory, has been impressive in doing that. That's why, right or wrong, evolution is not just "a religion, too".
A religion against religion, which is understandable and ignorant.I don't know what you mean here. Are you saying that evolution is against religion? Yours maybe, but not mine. There are lots of Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, and Christians who see no problem with evolution from the standpoint of religion. I'm a Christian.
Evolution takes the leap of faith to say that non-living things can and did create life,
while failing to answer the question of the non-living matter's creation. The origin of life and the creation of matter are really both outside the scope of evolutionary theory.The argument that Evolution is the truth and those who believe differently are ignorant is wrong, closed-minded and frankly annoying.I agree. Humans are far too fallible to boast about "the truth". But I do think we can brag about the scientific rigor that has guided evloutionary theory.

[neodude1212]

freakersoup, that was a pretty bad metaphor with the mice and cheese..lol it did more to prove his point than anything.

but basically, when talking about these things, proof is an unreasonable demand to place on a theist. or an atheist for that matter. science in not equipped to deal with the supernatural, and absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

[MollyBoston]

I believe only in science. Does science explain everything? Oh, heck no! But it's exciting to see what it will explain next.

Back in the day we said that humans had to come from God, because science couldn't explain where we came from. Then science figured out that we came from apes. Now science can't explain how that first speck of life happened, so we think that must have come from God. But someday science will explain that too.

There will always be people that say God is proven by the things we don't know, and that's fine - I certainly don't mind if people believe in God. But the things we don't know will change. Science keeps going.

It'll never disprove God, though, of course. That's as silly as thinking that God can somehow disprove science. It's impossible to prove or disprove God, which is why people call it "faith" - and that's exactly as it should be.

[FreakerSoup]

freakersoup, that was a pretty bad metaphor with the mice and cheese..lol it did more to prove his point than anything.
How so? His point=The two are on equal footing. My point=one requires a lot more faith than the other.


but basically, when talking about these things, proof is an unreasonable demand to place on a theist. or an atheist for that matter. science in not equipped to deal with the supernatural, and absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. No. It isn't. But if creation was true, don't you think there would be evidence for it? Instead of all the evidence for evolution? Science is equipped to deal with everything that can be shown objectively to exist.

To prove something absolutely true is impossible in most science. To prove that something has merit is easy (if it has merit). You just have to show that it is plausible. Evolution has been shown to be more than plausible, while creation has not. Until it takes less than complete and utter faith to believe that it is the case, it will remain merely possible.

[dreamagain]

The origin of life and the creation of matter are really both outside the scope of evolutionary theory.I agree. Humans are far too fallible to boast about "the truth". But I do think we can brag about the scientific rigor that has guided evloutionary theory.[/QUOTE]This is my biggest problem with athesism based solely on evolution. Because in my search for answers, the origin of life and the creation of matter happen to be two fairly important issues.

Macroevolution I fully and obviously believe in, but one species does not become something it's not. When humans mutate and develop wings biologically maybe we can talk, but why has man aparently stopped evolving, it would seem there would be evidence for real evolution within the time of written history. Is nature on a sabbatical?

I'll be honest with you, there is a big part of me that wants nothing more than to buy into atheism but I don't have the evidence to make me comfortable enough to throw away my previously held beliefs, because if they were true throwing them away would be of greater consequence than if I were wrong all along and went on believing that way. I have nothing to lose if I'm wrong, as a creationist christian.

[MollyBoston]

Dream...you know evolution happens slowly, right? Like, thousands of years slowly? We ARE evolving. For instance, we're developing greater lactose tolerance right now. We're also significantly taller than we were back in the olden times. Evolution doesn't mean some of us are going to develop optic blasts or something.

[dreamagain]

Those things are related to us eating processed foods, that react to our bodies differently. Because of that nowadays there are 2nd graders in C-cup bras. But that's besides the point.

Because of the exponential growth of humanity in the last couple hundred years we should be seeing an exponential growth in such mutations. Technology has boomed exponentially, theory has boomed exponentially, there are 6 billion more potential candidates for human mutation now than there were say 400 years ago.

Man is the highest being on this planet and we apparently have been the ultimate highest form for a long while now.

We are the only creatures who create/destroy our own environment, we are special because we develop new ways of doing things. We do not run solely on "evolutionary instinct." We are too powerful. No other species has developed the social interactions we have. Sex for pleasure, music, war, specialization of tasks (a job), I could go on all day. We do not adhere to environmental interactions we create them, we build civilizations.

These things can be defined by evolution, but you just don't find them elsewhere. I don't think amoebas are splitting because the enjoy it especially. Music has absolutely no evolutionary purpose, it is not a survival instinct. Neither is homosexuality, because it does not procreate. So if the purpose is survival which is evolutions basis it has no grounds.

The human mind is too far ahead to be explained via apes, the missing link is too great.

[neodude1212]

Those things are related to us eating processed foods, that react to our bodies differently. Because of that nowadays there are 2nd graders in C-cup bras. But that's besides the point.

Because of the exponential growth of humanity in the last couple hundred years we should be seeing an exponential growth in such mutations. Technology has boomed exponentially, theory has boomed exponentially, there are 6 billion more potential candidates for human mutation now than there were say 400 years ago.

Man is the highest being on this planet and we apparently have been the ultimate highest form for a long while now.

We are the only creatures who create/destroy our own environment, we are special because we develop new ways of doing things. We do not run solely on "evolutionary instinct." We are too powerful. No other species has developed the social interactions we have. Sex for pleasure, music, war, specialization of tasks (a job), I could go on all day. We do not adhere to environmental interactions we create them, we build civilizations.

These things can be defined by evolution, but you just don't find them elsewhere. I don't think amoebas are splitting because the enjoy it especially. Music has absolutely no evolutionary purpose, it is not a survival instinct. Neither is homosexuality, because it does not procreate. So if the purpose is survival which is evolutions basis it has no grounds.

The human mind is too far ahead to be explained via apes, the missing link is too great.
that is my take on the whole thing.

[neodude1212]

How so? His point=The two are on equal footing. My point=one requires a lot more faith than the other.not so. if you weren't there, and the only evidence you have that something took the cheese is the fact that the cheese is gone, why is it more plausible to assume it was a mouse over the option that God himself took it? If there is no evidence to say it was a mouse, then they both require the same amount of faith.


No. It isn't. But if creation was true, don't you think there would be evidence for it? Instead of all the evidence for evolution?.
get back to me when you have collected all the evidence of everything for everything in existence.

supernatural events can be experienced objectively, but science cannot explain them.

[Okiefreak]

not so. if you weren't there, and the only evidence you have that something took the cheese is the fact that the cheese is gone, why is it more plausible to assume it was a mouse over the option that God himself took it? If there is no evidence to say it was a mouse, then they both require the same amount of faith.You're right, from a strictly logical standpoint. It could also have been that Flying Spaghetti Monster we keep hearing about. Ordinarily I, and apparently other people as well, operate on the principle that when something unexplained like that happens, we go for the most familiar explanation--it was the mice, rather than God, elves, Martians, Spaghetti Monsters, etc. That's not exactly logic. It's experience-based intuition.



get back to me when you have collected all the evidence of everything for everything in existence. I think Freakersoup is not saying science has all the answers; just that on the particular subject of evolution, there's an enormous amount of evidence that seems to support the theory, nothing that really refutes it, very little empircal theory for creationism other than a literalist interpretation of scripture, and the problem of explaining why all the evidence supporting evolution got there if direct special creation was the real explanation of our origins. Not that there aren't scientists out there who have ventured explanations. In Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, Denton argued that the appearance of gradation in species is the result of the fact that the Creator was doing variations from a basic design "blueprint". (As I mentioned in an earlier post, he seems to have softened this view in favor of a more Darwinian approach). Progressive Creationism maintains that God intervenes at intervals to create irreducibly compled structures like DNA, while others think that design could have been front-loaded in information contained in the first living cells, but not activated until later. ID guru, Michael Behe, has advanced this view. Process theologians think that God generally prefers to shape evolution by influencing genetic mutations by radiation, etc. These explanations are all, shall we say, highly speculative.
[/QUOTE] We ARE evolving. For instance, we're developing greater lactose tolerance right now. We're also significantly taller than we were back in the olden times. Evolution doesn't mean some of us are going to develop optic blasts or something.For some additional information on evolution of lactose tolerance, see:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/10/science/10cnd-evolve.html?ei=5090&en=6576a01a1bb4ce31&ex=1323406800&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=print

[jrnyman]

Man is the highest being on this planet and we apparently have been the ultimate highest form for a long while now. ~~We are the only creatures who create/destroy our own environmentI'd say right there that's evidence that we obviously aren't the highest species on the planet. We're pretty m uch the only one who hasn't been able to find a sense of homeostasis with the rest of earth and her charges I'd say that puts us at the bottom of the totem pole.

I think a lot of our technology could also be keeping us from evolving in any strict sense of the word. We begin to rely upon technology for say health reasons and spontaneously we become a species with no immune system... same could be said for many other techno wonders.

And actually there are many species who have sex for pleasure, nearly every species of ape or monkey, dolphins and whales just to name a few. Interestingly enough many of those same species also have gay and group sex for pleasure as well. :)


And MollyB how do you know I haven't developed optic blasts... *focuses psyclops laser glasses...* you should should see my other special powers :D

Honestly I haven't seen compelling evidence that humans evolved on this planet to the point where we are... at least from the information we've been given. Unless there were massive spontaneous leaps in evolution, which is entirely possible. I think evolution itself is fairly obviously somewhat possible at least having major adaptations within a species. The lack of piltdown man, however, has made evolutionary claims somewhat lacking although I wouldn't put it past the vatican or any other (perhaps all other) major states to hide evidence of that nature.

I think it's equally as plausible that we came from off planet at whatever point and many aboriginal mysticisms claim such, including many native american mythologies. If we did evolve here I'd say that humans have been around for at least several hundred thousand years in stages possibly as advanced or more advanced (read not intent on dominating but in coexisting) states than we are now. We just tend to look for skyscrapers and nukes as signs of intelligent life and bypass radically advanced social structures of peace and happiness.

Personally I'm not a fan of a big whitey in the sky farting out ant farms in the form of humans but then I never was a very good christian even when I was one.

[Okiefreak]

For additional evidence of recent human evolution, see:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/10/051023115936.htm

For evidence that the rate of human evolution may be accelerating, see:
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/104/52/20753
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5256811

[hippie_chick666]

I think the fact that we still have a tail bone (modified, of course), an appendix, (which has little to no benefit whatsoever), and "junk" DNA (DNA that has no purpose, just copies of copies that takes up space) indicates clearly that humans have evolved. Why would an intelligent creator given humans (the supposed perfect creature) parts that have no use and can be detrimental? This is obviously NOT an intelligent design for humans.

About evolution today, people are starting to be born w/o an appendix. These people are just as healthy as people born w/ an appendix. This is evolution in action- the frequency of a genetic trait (no appendix) is increasing in a population. A change in frequency of an allele or genotype is evolution the fact.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vermiform_appendix

Peace and love

[FreakerSoup]

Because of the exponential growth of humanity in the last couple hundred years we should be seeing an exponential growth in such mutations. Technology has boomed exponentially, theory has boomed exponentially, there are 6 billion more potential candidates for human mutation now than there were say 400 years ago.

Man is the highest being on this planet and we apparently have been the ultimate highest form for a long while now.

We are the only creatures who create/destroy our own environment, we are special because we develop new ways of doing things. We do not run solely on "evolutionary instinct." We are too powerful. No other species has developed the social interactions we have. Sex for pleasure, music, war, specialization of tasks (a job), I could go on all day. We do not adhere to environmental interactions we create them, we build civilizations.

These things can be defined by evolution, but you just don't find them elsewhere. I don't think amoebas are splitting because the enjoy it especially. Music has absolutely no evolutionary purpose, it is not a survival instinct. Neither is homosexuality, because it does not procreate. So if the purpose is survival which is evolutions basis it has no grounds.

The human mind is too far ahead to be explained via apes, the missing link is too great.
I think you just aren't looking at the big picture. It's not all about instincts, that's only part of it. Sure, we have a lot of social interactions, but they all have consequences. E.G. Sex for pleasure. Lots of unprotected sex w/o BC = babies = evolutionary advantage. Lots of unprotected sex w/ BC = STD's, gross factor, probably obstacles to future reproduction. Generally. Homosexuality=no babies=no genes passed on=genes removed from pool. War = hegemonic advantage=one race has advantage over another. Music that pisses you off=hateful person=less successful reproduction. Most of what evolution deals with is the disadvantages, rather than the advantages. Many people are born with bad mutations, that will harm their ability to reproduce. http://articles.mercola.com/ImageServer/public/2007/12--december/12.11humanwerewolf.jpg http://salhibaisaa.com/forum/srv1/20061014_155736_human_tail8_368.jpg http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/52/Hydrocephalic_skull.jpg/753px-Hydrocephalic_skull.jpg http://hsc.usf.edu/nocms/medicine/biochemistry/Courses/Graduate/bch6627/synpolydactyly_phenotype_fi.jpg

Beneficial? Some people are immune to the bubonic plague. Some are immune to HIV. Some people have sexual characteristics that are more attractive to the opposite gender.

Additionally, as Molly said, these things happen very slowly. And they happen MUCH more slowly in larger organisms than smaller, simpler ones.

not so. if you weren't there, and the only evidence you have that something took the cheese is the fact that the cheese is gone, why is it more plausible to assume it was a mouse over the option that God himself took it? If there is no evidence to say it was a mouse, then they both require the same amount of faith. If you know that mice exist, live in your area, and eat cheese, then it irrational to say "Mice didn't do this. God did." It doesn't make sense to assume the existence of a third party whose existence isn't known. Now maybe if you have that suspicion, you can put out another piece of cheese the next night, and spread flour on the ground. If there are mouse tracks through it in the morning, no it's not proof, but it's more evidence. If you put a piece of meat out and film it overnight and find that a mouse truly eats it, it still isn't proof, but it's more evidence. If you then put another piece of cheese there, film it, and find a mouse eating it, it's not proof of the first one, but it's a heck of a lot of evidence, especially if god doesn't make an appearance. But I have a feeling that even if there were a camera pointed at it the first time and you see a mouse, I have a feeling a lot of people would say the god worked through the mouse.

But I really don't think you care about evidence.

Can you show me objective evidence of the supernatural?

[memo]

an appendix, (which has little to no benefit whatsoever)Actually, it isn't useless: http://www.dukehealth.org/HealthLibrary/News/10151

Just for clarification, I am a staunch Darwinian but I do not like the escalation of misinformation. You are however, correct about the tailbone and 'junk' DNA.

I really don't understand the debate over evolution. It's a well established scientific fact with incredible data and information to back it up. You can still have a religious worldview and accept evolution. As much as religion has to do with the spreading of misinformation, I don't put it entirely at fault. A lot has to do with the state of our educational system. It is in need of a serious overhaul when 1 in 5 Americans believe the sun revolves around the Earth:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/30/science/30profile.html
http://www.8bm.com/diatribes/volume02/034/708.htm

For anyone that still has doubts, here are some great sources:
http://www.talkorigins.org/
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html
http://www.talkdesign.org/cs/

I have no problem with anyone that decides to adhere to a religion or believe in (a) God. The problem arises when they lose all sense of reason and logic and attack well established scientific fact and push their own agenda onto others.

[dreamagain]

I believe it's called evolutionary theory my friend.

There is no way to empirically prove it. Because you simply can't. There is no conclusive proof of micro-evolution. It would answer lots of questions, yes, but that doesn't make it true. There's simply not enough evidence to claim scientific law of something and say everyone should adhere to darwin's ideas. Darwin himself was the first person to say there were holes in the argument.

It seems to me you are doing the agenda pushing memo, by saying those who do not believe as you do "lose all sense of reason and logic." Did it occur to you that someone could believe differently than you and have good reason to do so?

It's not scientific law, because there is not irrefutable evidence of evolution across species boundaries. I still have yet to see conclusive proof of fish growing legs and walking.

It seems to me the first 300 years of semi-developed useless legs on fish would be an evolutionary setback since they would've been that much more vulnerable to predators. Natural selection just doesn't make sense, because it would have to work rapidly, and the first walking fish. What did he do? Go to the sperm bank, wank off and have his man sauce frozen. Or did he wait around the pond hoping to find another like legged female fish before getting eaten in this new-to-him environment we call land that he was completely unaccustomed to.

Then again the predators probably new better than to pick on the mutant lame-legged and lunged fish, that could barely breathe underwater, they were saving them so that the legged, lunged fish could evolve into people and come back to eat their ancestors.

For establshed scientific fact there sure are some holes.

[memo]

I believe it's called evolutionary theory my friend.You don't understand the difference between the word 'theory' in a general sense, and the word used scientifically. "In science, a theory is a mathematical or logical explanation, or a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation. It follows from this that for scientists "theory" and "fact" do not necessarily stand in opposition."

There is no way to empirically prove it. Because you simply can't.It's been proven. Do you also disbelieve in gravity because "it's just a theory"?
There is no conclusive proof of micro-evolution.Read the links I provided.
Darwin himself was the first person to say there were holes in the argument.When? Where? Prove it.


It seems to me you are doing the agenda pushing memo, by saying those who do not believe as you do "lose all sense of reason and logic."You're right. Those that don't accept science are incredibly ignornant and aren't intelligent members of society.
Did it occur to you that someone could believe differently than you and have good reason to do so?I don't care what someone believes, but science isn't something one "believes" the way one believes a religion. It's established fact. To go against rational thought and established fact is foolish.

It's not scientific law, because there is not irrefutable evidence of evolution across species boundaries. I still have yet to see conclusive proof of fish growing legs and walking. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/04/06/MNGCGI4CAD1.DTL
http://news.softpedia.com/news/How-did-fish-grow-legs-15424.shtml
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiktaalik

There's plenty more. Crack open a biology book. The rest of your post is rubbish.

[FreakerSoup]

I believe it's called evolutionary theory my friend.

There is no way to empirically prove it. Because you simply can't. There is no conclusive proof of micro-evolution. It would answer lots of questions, yes, but that doesn't make it true. There's simply not enough evidence to claim scientific law of something and say everyone should adhere to darwin's ideas. Darwin himself was the first person to say there were holes in the argument.

It seems to me you are doing the agenda pushing memo, by saying those who do not believe as you do "lose all sense of reason and logic." Did it occur to you that someone could believe differently than you and have good reason to do so?

It's not scientific law, because there is not irrefutable evidence of evolution across species boundaries. I still have yet to see conclusive proof of fish growing legs and walking.

It seems to me the first 300 years of semi-developed useless legs on fish would be an evolutionary setback since they would've that much more vulnerable to predators. Natural selection just doesn't make sense, because it would have to work rapidly, and the first walking fish. What did he do? Go to the sperm bank, wank off and have his man sauce frozen. Or did he wait around the pond hoping to find another like legged female fish before getting eaten in this new-to-him environment we call land that he was completely unaccustomed to.

For establshed scientific fact there sure are some holes
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiktaalik

Again they're only holes to you because you don't understand how it works. When a beneficial gene arises, it is passed on at a higher frequency than the regular type, and eventually leads to a population with a new trait.

I do think you seem to have lost sense of reason and logic, but I don't think that because you disagree with me. It's because you use arguments that are clearly illogical to support your views. If there's a logical reason, lemme know, 'cause I haven't heard one yet.

It can be proven to work. Selection is used all the time to breed for certain traits in plants, dogs, horses, etc. I'm sure that someday, a lab-performed experiment will definitively show speciation, but we have not gotten to that point yet. Of course, it cannot be proven that that is what happened in the past. But using a little bit of logic, a dab of reason, and a smidgen of inference, we can say with confidence that this is correct. There is massive evidence for evolution. I have yet to see any noteworthy arguments against it. And yes, there is enough evidence to say that it is true. The only people that rail against it are people that either don't understand it or have a political/religious agenda.

One more thing...Darwin is not like god for scientists. Saying he may have been wrong about somethings does not irk us. He lived a long time ago, and many advances have been made since then, including changes to evolutionary theory. I really don't get why creationists obsess over Darwin as they do.

[FreakerSoup]

Haha, same link.

Nice.

[memo]

Haha, same link.

Nice.High five, my fellow heathen.

[Okiefreak]

The origin of life and the creation of matter are really both outside the scope of evolutionary theory.... This is my biggest problem with atheism based solely on evolution. Because in my search for answers, the origin of life and the creation of matter happen to be two fairly important issues. Yes, they are. And you're right that science seems unable, so far, to explain them, which is one reason I consider the God idea plausible. Of course, atheists like Dawkins would say we're worshipping a "God of gaps"--using "God" to explain what is currently unknown or unknowable. Since I don't expect these questions to be answered in my lifetime, I have to either suspend judgment altogether, have faith that science will provide naturalistic explanations some day, or take a chance on God. I've chosen to do the latter, but my decision rests less on the answers to these questions than on how well the God hypotheses fits with other pieces of the puzzle, including my personal philosophy of meaning.

I'll be honest with you, there is a big part of me that wants nothing more than to buy into atheism but I don't have the evidence to make me comfortable enough to throw away my previously held beliefs, because if they were true throwing them away would be of greater consequence than if I were wrong all along and went on believing that way. I have nothing to lose if I'm wrong, as a creationist christian.I really appreciate your candor in sharing this with us. I hope you won't find it offensive for me to express some reservations. I've put a lot of emphasis in my own approach to reality on risk-based decision making, and I think of faith as intuitive risk taking (Luther's "joyful bet"), so the difference between my own outlook and yours may be subtle. I agree that we're basically betting our lives on our beliefs. But the way you formulate your faith is very similar to Pascal's wager. The thing that's always bothered me about his approach is that it seems to base belief on the prospect of extrinsic rewards or punishments that have nothing to do with his estimate of the likelihood that the beliefs are true. He's not concerned with how reasonable the beliefs seem, or how much evidence there is for them--just with whether the potential threats and/ or rewards are greater in accepting one belief versus another. In other words, whoever is able to present him with the most frightening threat or most enticing reward for believing a certain thing will get his soul. Intuitively, there just seems to be something wrong about that. By the same logic, Pascal would recommend passing on any chain letter that comes along with a horrible curse or wonderful blessing attached, because you never know. Some questions: (1) Is it possible? Can you really believe something that seems improbable simply because somebody has made such a threat or promise? (2) Is it commendable? Should this kind of calculated bet hedging be rewarded, or is there something a little crass and craven about it, like selling one's soul? (3) Will it work? Will this "Gee, I'd really like to be an atheist but I don't want to take a chance" cut ice with the Almighty? (4) Is it sensible? Does betting the only life we know for rewards/punishments in a future world we've never experienced really have no potential for adverse consequences? I don't mean to challenge your faith as a Christian, because obviously I've chosen the same path, but I'm seriously interested in the issues that you raise--and I'm convinced there's substantial evidence to support Christian belief.

[hippie_chick666]

Actually, it isn't useless: http://www.dukehealth.org/HealthLibrary/News/10151

Just for clarification, I am a staunch Darwinian but I do not like the escalation of misinformation. You are however, correct about the tailbone and 'junk' DNA.

I really don't understand the debate over evolution. It's a well established scientific fact with incredible data and information to back it up. You can still have a religious worldview and accept evolution. As much as religion has to do with the spreading of misinformation, I don't put it entirely at fault. A lot has to do with the state of our educational system. It is in need of a serious overhaul when 1 in 5 Americans believe the sun revolves around the Earth:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/30/science/30profile.html
http://www.8bm.com/diatribes/volume02/034/708.htm

For anyone that still has doubts, here are some great sources:
http://www.talkorigins.org/
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html
http://www.talkdesign.org/cs/

I have no problem with anyone that decides to adhere to a religion or believe in (a) God. The problem arises when they lose all sense of reason and logic and attack well established scientific fact and push their own agenda onto others.
The appendix is most useful in third world countries, where diarrahea can cause death. This is what my article pointed out, which also cited your article. In the US, it has little to no use. I should have clarified, although I don't understand why you say I was "escalating misinformation(?)." That seems a little harsh when you ignore that there are some scientists that DO claim the appendix is completely useless.

Peace and love

[Mellow Yellow]

I'd say right there that's evidence that we obviously aren't the highest species on the planet. We're pretty m uch the only one who hasn't been able to find a sense of homeostasis with the rest of earth and her charges I'd say that puts us at the bottom of the totem pole.

I think a lot of our technology could also be keeping us from evolving in any strict sense of the word. We begin to rely upon technology for say health reasons and spontaneously we become a species with no immune system... same could be said for many other techno wonders.
It's ironic that technology, the one thing that separates us from all other species, makes us arrogantly believe that we're evolved, when in reality we are devolved. Technology has displaced spirituality, the highest form of consciousness. We've compromised our connection with the earth in the process of manipulating our physical environment to suit us, when evolution dictates that it should be the other way around.

[Okiefreak]

It's ironic that technology, the one thing that separates us from all other species, makes us arrogantly believe that we're evolved, when in reality we are devolved. Technology has displaced spirituality, the highest form of consciousness. We've compromised our connection with the earth in the process of manipulating our physical environment to suit us, when evolution dictates that it should be the other way around.Evolution isn't necessarily the same as progress. The image of a ladder or those Frank and Earnest cartoons showing the parade of species following us are just popular misconceptions.

[neodude1212]

If you know that mice exist, live in your area, and eat cheese, then it irrational to say "Mice didn't do this. God did." It doesn't make sense to assume the existence of a third party whose existence isn't known. Now maybe if you have that suspicion, you can put out another piece of cheese the next night, and spread flour on the ground. If there are mouse tracks through it in the morning, no it's not proof, but it's more evidence. If you put a piece of meat out and film it overnight and find that a mouse truly eats it, it still isn't proof, but it's more evidence. If you then put another piece of cheese there, film it, and find a mouse eating it, it's not proof of the first one, but it's a heck of a lot of evidence, especially if god doesn't make an appearance. But I have a feeling that even if there were a camera pointed at it the first time and you see a mouse, I have a feeling a lot of people would say the god worked through the mouse.

But I really don't think you care about evidence.

Can you show me objective evidence of the supernatural?
ummm wtf?
In the original example you provided, there was NO evidence. then you add loads and loads of evidence it was a mouse, and tell me I dont care about evidence?

sure, IF in the original example you had included all that evidence, I would say that it is much more reasonable to conclude it was a mouse.

but thinking LOGICALLY, it requires the same amount of faith to believe it was either a mouse or God if you have no evidence. this is logic.
If i know mice live in my area, eat cheese, and exist, it still doesn't make sense logically to jump to the conclusion that mice did it.
If you can jump to the conclusion that it wasn't God in lack of evidence of any other option, then you obviously have biased standards and judge events with preconcieved outcomes. If a logical argument for God ever aroused, you would probably just dismiss it anyways.

Many people objectively experience supernatural events all the time. I live in Savannah, Georgia, and if you look it up, it's one of the most haunted cities in America.

*hardy har har neo is crazy haha*

but in all seriousness, I used to go ghost hunting for a little while. If I knew you in real life, I could take you to objectively see 4 supernatural occurances that I personally know to take place each and every night. I've taken at least 20 people to all these places, and they all see the same thing I do.

So, this is an objective, collective experience, or there is something in the water down here.

[FreakerSoup]

but thinking LOGICALLY, it requires the same amount of faith to believe it was either a mouse or God if you have no evidence. this is logic.
If you have never heard of mice, maybe. If you know mice exist (and eat cheese, I suppose), it is more logical to say that there are mice in your house than it is to say that there must exist a supernatural force that likes cheese. Mice aside, even, it is more logical to say that some animal is in your house and eating your cheese than to assume the supernatural.



but in all seriousness, I used to go ghost hunting for a little while. If I knew you in real life, I could take you to objectively see 4 supernatural occurances that I personally know to take place each and every night. I've taken at least 20 people to all these places, and they all see the same thing I do.
Maybe I'll come visit someday, I'd be interested to see that. What is it? Has it been videotaped?

[Okiefreak]

I believe it's called evolutionary theory my friend.In science, unlike everyday usage, evolution can be (and is) both theory and fact. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_and_fact
There is no conclusive proof of micro-evolution. It would answer lots of questions, yes, but that doesn't make it true. I think you have your terminology confused. Most Creationists concede microevolution. It's macroevolution they dispute.

[Okiefreak]

It seems to me the first 300 years of semi-developed useless legs on fish would be an evolutionary setback since they would've been that much more vulnerable to predators.
What seems puzzling about this argument is that there are walking fish, today, right now, that people can see and touch. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walking_fish. Some climb: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climbing_perch ;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterfall_Climbing_Cave_Fish
In fact, some of them, the snakeheads, have become quite a problem in some parts of the country, because they're voracious predators, not the pansies you portray.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/07/0702_020702_snakehead.html
These fish are formidable enough as it is, and it's easy to see how even rudimentary legs would aid them in climbing and walking. Recent discoveries provide important links in the fossil record of transitional forms in the development from fish to amphibians. http://hometown.aol.com/darwinpage/tetrapods.htm ;http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/04/0401_040401_tetrapodfossil.html
The best book on this subject is Carl Zimmer's At The Water's Edge, which includes excellent coverage of how fish got legs. Legs didn't evolve to help fish survive on land, but rather to help fish swim in the shallows at the ocean's edge. Legs, even rudimentary ones, allow fish to move better among river plants and sneak up on prey. Left, right motion came first. This helped fins to grow stronger. At some point there came a need to move to another puddle, to get away from predators, or lto lie out of the water in wait for prey. Strong, alternating fins, which had evolved entirely in the water, were well-suited for these new purposes.

[Hryhorii]

Mudskippers are another example of walking/climbing fish.

Another link with tetrapods and fish is the coelacanth. When you watch it move, you can see its fins move in the same front-back patters as quadrapeds...

[hippie_chick666]

"If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way."

Bertrand Russell- a wise man

Peace and love

[Reigning Fire]

There is a Universal God who is currently beyond human comprehension. And there are beings far more knowledged and peaceful than humans (ie: Jesus, Buddha etc...) and vice versa. There is a whole spectrum of beings both above and below the spiritual state of humans. Humans just think they are special because of their ignorance. They have a long way to go before they can even grasp the concept of a Universal God.

[hippie_chick666]

I don't think humans will ever be able to intellectually understand an infinite force/entity, as the mind is finite by nature. When we try to define the infinite in our finite terms, we are creating a mental concept of a finite being, which by definition is not infinite. Therefore, any gods that humans define are not the infinite being and are false.

Peace and love

[Reigning Fire]

I don't think humans will ever be able to intellectually understand an infinite force/entity, as the mind is finite by nature. When we try to define the infinite in our finite terms, we are creating a mental concept of a finite being, which by definition is not infinite. Therefore, any gods that humans define are not the infinite being and are false.

Peace and love
Excellent point.

We should meet up and talk more ;)

[neodude1212]

I don't think humans will ever be able to intellectually understand an infinite force/entity, as the mind is finite by nature. When we try to define the infinite in our finite terms, we are creating a mental concept of a finite being, which by definition is not infinite. Therefore, any gods that humans define are not the infinite being and are false.

Peace and love
I wouldn't say false, just not accurately described.

If Im in love with someone, and I try to explain to you what it feels like, I'd probably do a horrible job.
That doesn't change that fact that the original inspiration is true.

[themnax]

yes, i believe it is good to love our invisible friends and that they are real. the dark side of belief, is that when we attempt to judge the unknown, we deceive ourselves.

it is quite a seperate thing apart from loving our invisible freinds, to try to tell someone else how to perceive their own.

=^^=
.../\...

[dropdead]

i believe that were animals

like animals were born
we live
we die
and we decay into the ground

and i dont believe theres a god or a creator
i believe humans create religion for strength and support

[PlacidPete]

But, dropdead, where to you believe we came from?

[hippie_chick666]

I wouldn't say false, just not accurately described.

If Im in love with someone, and I try to explain to you what it feels like, I'd probably do a horrible job.
That doesn't change that fact that the original inspiration is true.No, you are missing the point. If something is indescribable, then any descriptions are false. The idea of Tao/God force/whatever you call it is entirely infinite and cannot be described by its nature. Therefore, when I give it the name "Tao," this concept is false b/c it is a concept which is finite. The infinite can never be decribed w/ finite terms, which all descriptions are.

Your example illustrates this point. You can't describe a feeling but that doesn't make the feeling unreal. It makes any description of the feeling false. Therefore, any description is ultimately false b/c words are not the object they describe.
Peace and love

[Okiefreak]

No, you are missing the point. If something is indescribable, then any descriptions are false. The idea of Tao/God force/whatever you call it is entirely infinite and cannot be described by its nature. Therefore, when I give it the name "Tao," this concept is false b/c it is a concept which is finite. The infinite can never be decribed w/ finite terms, which all descriptions are.

Your example illustrates this point. You can't describe a feeling but that doesn't make the feeling unreal. It makes any description of the feeling false. Therefore, any description is ultimately false b/c words are not the object they describe.
Peace and loveThey're constructs, like "black hole", "quark" "quantum" or "Superstring";they work, in the context of mathematical equations and (at least potentially) in explaining or making predictions about reality. But we have reason to believe that they may not "exist" in the way we think of them. That's a little different than calling them "false".

[neodude1212]

I don't think humans will ever be able to intellectually understand an infinite force/entity, as the mind is finite by nature. When we try to define the infinite in our finite terms, we are creating a mental concept of a finite being, which by definition is not infinite. Therefore, any gods that humans define are not the infinite being and are false.

Peace and love
The part in bold is what I was refering to.
It's one thing to say our descriptions are false, but does that automatically make the face behind the mask, false as well?
no.

[Okiefreak]

In cosidering "alternative science" theories like Young Earth Creationism, let's not leave out the Flat Earth Society, which was founded by biblical literalists but has a rather elaborate pseudocientific rationale for believing the earth is flat, complete with conspiracy theories (the Moonwalk was staged in a Hollywood movie studio backlot).
http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/FlatHome.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth_Society
Are we sure they aren't right? Is there anything we can be sure of? (I say No)

[memo]

Are we sure they aren't right? Is there anything we can be sure of? (I say No)What

[themnax]

No, you are missing the point. If something is indescribable, then any descriptions are false. The idea of Tao/God force/whatever you call it is entirely infinite and cannot be described by its nature. Therefore, when I give it the name "Tao," this concept is false b/c it is a concept which is finite. The infinite can never be decribed w/ finite terms, which all descriptions are.

Your example illustrates this point. You can't describe a feeling but that doesn't make the feeling unreal. It makes any description of the feeling false. Therefore, any description is ultimately false b/c words are not the object they describe.
Peace and lovebingo! precisely my point as well.

no reason there either can't be, OR has to be, anything, but whatever words we invent for it/them, we are only fooling ourselves to imagine we know anything because we've invented words for it. nor, at the same time does this prevent there from being anything we don't know, nor us from feeling and experiencing what we don't have to pretend to know to feel and experience.

we have no idea what may or may not have created anything, we can only observe that some things happen more often then others and that some things happen more often when other things happen before them, and from doing so, deduce backwards some things that are likely to have occured before the conditions we experience now.

if some people want to call what the feel is big, friendly and invissible, "god", or whatever else, well that is one thing, but really that is just a name, our, or someone's name for it.

knowing that nothing is limited by our lack of knowledge about it, i like to feel that i can love and be loved and do love and am loved by many invisible things i know nothing objectively about.

and if one happens to be bigger then all the rest of them, or all encompassing, well, that's 'god' enough for me.

all the rest of the stuff religeons come up with, well maybe that big invisible something pickes someone every thousand years or so to be channeled by, but still, when it comes out of the words of anyone among us, well those are words, and the unkown is still the unknown, and all that is, is still more diverse then we can imagine and still, how can i say, unlikely for there not to be many times more of it then any one or any belief pretends to know.

and even those channelers, what are they really telling us?
that there's some kind of war between unseen things, or that we should beat everyone over the head to doesn't aggree to one or another particular way of looking at it? not that i can see in any of the things any of them wrote or had written. no, the tell us, in many and often confusing words, but the tell us that yes we are loved by something we can never know, but also that it really is, still up to us, to not mess everything up for each other. maybe some of them sound like the're saying we don't have to worry about any of that if we just fallow their rituals and believe their myths, but these too, are things that people are saying to each other for people reasons. and we can observe that this doesn't really work very well.

i don't believe any of the real origens of any of those beliefs really wanted us to lie to ourselves the way those who identify themselves as their fallowers, so often seem to insist upon that we do.

ah, but again that is of course a digression into belief.

what is honest is to admit that we don't know what we don't know, without denying the possibility that we can still be loved by it.

it's fun to make up stories about what we can't see, and no one can prove or disprove, but when we forget that is what the words of belief are doing, even though the feelings of belief can be and often are very real, then we've drifted into a self destructive territory, that i really don't believe anything unseen, ever really intended us to. i mean there is only the words of people saying THEY want us to.

so yes i believe there are things we don't know, but that not knowing is not knowing, not any of the stories we are told.

i mean i HAVE felt things, experienced things, and what I'VE felt and experienced, simply does NOT confirm, what anyone has ever told me to believe about it. only that we are loved by things we don't know.

=^^=
.../\...

[Mellow Yellow]

The infinite can never be decribed w/ finite terms, which all descriptions are.
Interesting point, though many philosophers have tried. The full nature of reality, then, is beyond the realm of any framework we can impose upon it (be it by language, scientific model, etc.). Understanding, then, becomes a process of extending one's consciousness, which requires letting go of the frameworks our minds cling to.

[Truckin']

I agree with Maria Bamford:

"I don't believe in God. I believe in the human mind's power to create fantasies that reassure itself in times of trouble."

[Razorofoccam]

I believe you guys are all full o shit. ;)
10 pages of garbage and maybe 3 things worth noting.

Find out what BELIEVE means. then come back.
Believe does NOT mean 'it exists'. It is subjective.
A perception
So is Justice morality, beauty, hope, freedom, hate, love fear, compassion

Occam

PS.. ALso Nations, corporations, Juntas, sects, religions.
ALL are beliefs.. They do not physically exist.
They are states of neuroelectrical activity in the minds of the
proliffic ape called MAN.
Master of all he surveys, lord of nothing.

[dropdead]

well PlacidPete im not really sure
but then again no one is

science say its evolutions
religion says its a god

no one knows for sure everybodys just goin with their gut

i personally dont see enough proof for either of these beliefs
not that i dont respect others beliefs thats just me personally im not gonna be a cock about it

[themnax]

I believe you guys are all full o shit. ;)
10 pages of garbage and maybe 3 things worth noting.

Find out what BELIEVE means. then come back.
Believe does NOT mean 'it exists'. It is subjective.
A perception
So is Justice morality, beauty, hope, freedom, hate, love fear, compassion

Occam

PS.. ALso Nations, corporations, Juntas, sects, religions.
ALL are beliefs.. They do not physically exist.
They are states of neuroelectrical activity in the minds of the
proliffic ape called MAN.
Master of all he surveys, lord of nothing.good for you. you and hippychick both said it better then i could this time.

=^^=
.../\...

[Okiefreak]

Believe does NOT mean 'it exists'. It is subjective.
A perception
So is Justice morality, beauty, hope, freedom, hate, love fear, compassion

Occam

PS.. ALso Nations, corporations, Juntas, sects, religions.
ALL are beliefs.. They do not physically exist.
They are states of neuroelectrical activity in the minds of the
proliffic ape called MAN.
Master of all he surveys, lord of nothing.And SCIENCE, too?

[Razorofoccam]

And SCIENCE, too?Okie

Good question.

Science is a belief as well.
Subjective, [a perception come about from neuroelectric input]
but with one very important qualifier.
A hundred, a thousand, a billion humans.
Cannot disprove that an 'thing' falls to earth. [an apple ;)]
At 32 ft per second per second.
One gravity.

NO HUMAN has ever invalidated gravity. [gravitic effect]
EVER

Science is simply an event [phenomena] which no human can invalidate.

Thus we must all agree that things fall down.
Life is massively complicated and interconnected.
[Relative to all else]
Iron has more protons than carbon.
Exct.

Science CANNOT be applied to ANY belief held by one person
if that person cannot produce the belief to be tested by scientific method.

Set #1 Things that exist.. atoms,EM radiation, space, .. all exist.
[they cannot be disproved]
Set #2 Structures. Organisations of things that exist.
ie.
Love is a structure of neuroelectric activity in human heads.
As is beauty, democracy, justice, hate, fear, compassion.....
Or
Planets, suns, galaxies are organisations of atoms,EM radiation,space.

What a wonderFULL reality i have found myself in..

Occam

[memo]

http://img186.imageshack.us/img186/9278/facepalmel4.jpg

This whole thread is one giant facepalm.

[Razorofoccam]

This whole thread is one giant facepalm.Memo

Poor bubby,, Whats wrong,? ego getting you down?

Live Thoreau, dont quote him.

Anytime... i await

Occam

[memo]

Memo

Poor bubby,, Whats wrong,? ego getting you down?

Live Thoreau, dont quote him.

Anytime... i await

OccamWhat ego? Experimenting with psychadelics has pretty much destroyed whatever ego I had. That doesn't mean that I have to abandon all reason. I went hiking for 5 hours this morning and slept on a pile of leaves last night. I think I'm doing pretty good. :)

[Razorofoccam]

I went hiking for 5 hours this morning and slept on a pile of leaves last night. I think I'm doing pretty good. :)Memo

Lol.. And you stashed your PC with isdn connection where?
ooh thats a big leaf.

Occam

[memo]

Memo

Lol.. And you stashed your PC with isdn connection where?
ooh thats a big leaf.

OccamIt must be lonely up there on the pedestal. :)

[Razorofoccam]

It must be lonely up there on the pedestal.Memo..

Actually.. im under a leaf. With the bugs and shit.. nice. Can smell green.
But i dont sleep in leaves and dirt..I have a bed..Only fool sleeps in leaves when he has a bed 30 feet away.
[or a drunk who fell down]

People that say they sleep in dirt but post on the www have a pedestal.
It's called 'the lonely avatar of freedom with Wi-Fi and $200 shoes'

Occam

[memo]

People that say they sleep in dirt but post on the www have a pedestal.It's not possible to do both? I know folks that live in tents under the overpass with wifi. Thoreau never advicated abondoning society or technology, only peacefully coexisting with society and technology without over-reliance. The internet is a nice luxury and I enjoy having the world's information available at the click of the button but I use it to gather ideas on how to live the way I described earlier. Right now, living like that is not feasible in my situation so it's fun to experiment with it as often as I can. The only reason I say you're on a pedestal is because you come across as some kind of internet guru that has the world figured out. If you're nothing like that then I'm sorry I have misjudged you. Either way I wish you the best in life friend with whatever path you take.

Also, where did you get $200 shoes from? I'm wearing $3 moccasins from the thrift store. :)

[Mellow Yellow]

People that say they sleep in dirt but post on the www have a pedestal.
It's called 'the lonely avatar of freedom with Wi-Fi and $200 shoes'
Not taking sides here, but that is fucking hillarious!

It's ironic, but the internet is a good source of information for those who want to evade technology. And the feasibility of such a life style choice is a matter of degree. Baby steps. You'll get there as will I if I live long enough, lol. Maybe if we think really hard we can build a wi-fi connection out of a tree.

I initially came to a similiar conclusion about the pedestal, I mean the man comes across as downright arrogant, right? However, I quickly came to my senses. I mean, what better way to engage someone than to prod their ego?

The answer to the existental questions are subjective. There's no definitive answer, but if you juggle it around hard enough in your head, it sometimes helps to break the cob webs loose, so you can answer the questions that are relavant to your reality. Hallucinogens are a good way to facilitate the process.


http://www.hipgallery.com/photopost2/data/500/Katahdin1.jpg

[Gravity]

I believe in myself.

[PlacidPete]

oow true believer there ^

[themnax]

i believe we all have invisible friends. i believe there are more kinds of unseen things then i can ever imagine or anyone ever has. i believe not that there has to be nor has to not be anything seen or unseen, but rather that we can and do experience things we don't have to pretend to know anything about in order to.

i also believe none of them have to have anything to do with creating us nor our surroundings nor with our subsiquent lives. i believe it is also quite possible that while some or even many of them might wish to be our personal friends, few if any of these, have any slightest desire to be worshiped.

=^^=
.../\...

[Tina1025]

I guess i believe in God but i dont believe in different religion... PLAIN AND SIMPLE...

[Razorofoccam]

Also, where did you get $200 shoes from? I'm wearing $3 moccasins from the thrift store. :);)

Occam

[Razorofoccam]

I believe in myself.lol. why not.. someone has to

Occam

[Mellow Yellow]

I see what you mean about invisible friends, but I think of it more in terms of manifesting itself as collective consciousness.

[Razorofoccam]

I guess i believe in God but i dont believe in different religion... PLAIN AND SIMPLE...Tina

Different to what?
If you meant 'different religionS'

Then i agree.. God does not take sides.
It organises.. It does not judge.

Occam

[Tina1025]

Razorofoccam

Yes I meant different religions. I agree.. God does not take sides. God ALSO doesn’t tell you to fast, by not eating meat on a certain days will make the sins go away, go to temple or church everyday and pray ten times a day, etc. Those are all religious beliefs. People who do those types of things every day are not necessarily “good” or “religious” people. If those people go out and talk shyt about other people, or treat other human being unfairly are just as bad as people who doesn’t fast or go to church or temple everyday....To me believing in god is to be honest, to not talk shyt behind people’s back, to not make fun of fat, short, tall, skinny, white, black, brown, poor, wealthy, ugly, pretty people...

[naomi08]

I believe and know for a fact God is real come on this world wasnt created by a big bang when a explosion goes off it doesnt create anything it destroys. Look at the world obvisley there is a creator that created all of it and us. God does tell us how to live our lifes but it is for the best if you look at the ten commanments they are good way for people to live their lifes but people tend to do the opposite and ruin their lifes and dont listen to God how selfish can they be after all they wouldnt be here if it wasnt for him. I kind of believe in recarnation even though the bible says its not real but mybe their is no such thing as recarnation mybe someones just pocessed of the person who died or mybe they just have dreams about it and think it is there past lifes but it is not it is someone elses. Things like religion and supernatural are unexplainable. However I dont agree with catholic religion and my reason for this is because te bible says we are all sinners and catholics go to priests who are just normal men to ask them for forgiveness how can a man who is a sinner himself forgive another sinner? I think only God can forgive sins after all he is God he is not a sinner therefore he can forgive sins but a sinner cannot forgive a sinner.

[FreakerSoup]

What do explosions destroy? While they destroy one thing, they create another. I think you'll find that most people that have studied it (not me so much) will tell you that the Big Bang was not as much an explosion as an expansion.

I think that as you go through life you will find that the answers to the questions are not as clear as you may now think they are.

[naomi08]

Well the Darwin theroy is a lot of shit I know so because before he died he read the Bible then got saved so tis just proves he made it all up.

[naomi08]

People say God isnt real cuz we cant see him
We cant see the wind but we feel its there tats how we no its real
it is the exact same with God and christians we cant
see him but we know he's there cause we can feel his presence
I think you can only feel his presence if you have faith obvisley if you
dont believe you cant feel a presence

[memo]

Well the Darwin theroy is a lot of shit I know so because before he died he read the Bible then got saved so tis just proves he made it all up.This isn't true. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hope.html

You've got many roads to travel...

I wish you the best.

[naomi08]

Well he admitted to someone that just made it all up for money and publicity.

[FreakerSoup]

Where did you come up with this?

[themnax]

i believe that none of us knows shit. but that there are a lot of wierd wonderful things we can enjoy, when we're not too adamantly attatched to deceiving ourselves and too bussy doing so, to notice them.

=^^=
.../\...

[Razorofoccam]

Razorofoccam

Yes I meant different religions. I agree.. God does not take sides. God ALSO doesn’t tell you to fast, by not eating meat on a certain days will make the sins go away, go to temple or church everyday and pray ten times a day, etc. Those are all religious beliefs. People who do those types of things every day are not necessarily “good” or “religious” people. If those people go out and talk shyt about other people, or treat other human being unfairly are just as bad as people who doesn’t fast or go to church or temple everyday....
Agree
To me believing in god is to be honest, to not talk shyt behind people’s back, to not make fun of fat, short, tall, skinny, white, black, brown, poor, wealthy, ugly, pretty people...Well said
I have often called myself an agnostic
A reactionary kickback against religion.
But i do believe there is a designer. Something that organises the reality
we find ourselves in.
Human religions are mostly childish garbage.
Simplistic cover stories to establish human power on earth.
IE catholicism.

You and i know that such is of little worth.
Let us begin.
To create a non-religion. A belief in a designer.
[and there is much evidence for such]
Without a religion or it's 'faith'.

'Faith' is for those who 'believe'. Because they want to.
Faith is believing in the story. [about 'god'] And a poor story it is.

Occam

[Tina1025]

Occam
I definitely agree with you!!!

[Severely stoned]

prolonged spirit existance, my body may perish but my soul and my spirit will ive in (quote from a dragonforce song actually)

really though i think death cant simply be the end.
we are all born with universal knowledge its just the ammount of that that we tap into in our lifetime that really defines how enlightened we are.
god and jesus are complete bullshit.
and you can only become as enlightened as you are willing ot become.

[neodude1212]

for you to say that Jesus is complete bullshit really sheds light on how "enlightened" you truly are....

[Mellow Yellow]

Religion is valuable in providing spiritual guidance. However, it's arrogant for mankind to assume that God would manifest itself as a human form, or that the universe was created for man with man at its center. We are nothing, and this selfish ideal will ultimately lead to our extinction.

[Razorofoccam]

for you to say that Jesus is complete bullshit really sheds light on how "enlightened" you truly are....Dude

Agree
Jesus was a great man.
To say he was bullshit is like saying Einstein was bullshit.
Two great men.. who thought alike
One turned his wise eye to his fellows.
One turned his wise eye to the reality his fellows lived in.
[Einstien postdating jesus. had this to say
"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."]

Neither.. thought of themselves.

Occam
But reality is
"Two things are infinite: the universe[reality] and human stupidity;
and I'm not sure about the the universe." [Einstein]
I am.

[themnax]

its not what we call things that is important. that's the part that fanatics miss, and puts them at odds with whatever else they might otherwise be pretending to believe in.

by that i mean when were not talking about things that are objectively rational. things out side of the realm that science doesn't deny but doesn't see as within its real of concern and purpose to deal with.

the details of speculation are just that. honesty, i feel, is to admit that while also admitting that it is perfectly possible to experience and feel things we don't have to pretend to know anything about in order to do so.

the common trap people fall into, whether in the name of belief or against it, is imagining subconsciously, whether they ever openly put it into words, or even realize they're doing so, that nothing can exist without their knowing, or at least being capable of knowing, about it.

if people could just accept that things they don't know exist, without making a wedge excuse of differences over details of their speculation, then all would be fine between beliefs and between beliefs and reality.

to me that is what an honest belief is. feeling and embracing that spiritness, without denying that what we don't know we don't know.

=^^=
.../\...

[Razorofoccam]

the common trap people fall into, whether in the name of belief or against it, is imagining subconsciously, whether they ever openly put it into words, or even realize they're doing so, that nothing can exist without their knowing, or at least being capable of knowing, about it.
.../\...Themnax
In your quiet way you have again defined truth.
Well said my brother.

Please ignor the anger i show in other forums.
How to get the attention.
Sometimes, only a stick in the eye will work. 'oowwwww'

Peace, and a modicum of quiet ;)

Occam

[Mellow Yellow]

its not what we call things that is important. that's the part that fanatics miss, and puts them at odds with whatever else they might otherwise be pretending to believe in.

by that i mean when were not talking about things that are objectively rational. things out side of the realm that science doesn't deny but doesn't see as within its real of concern and purpose to deal with.

the details of speculation are just that. honesty, i feel, is to admit that while also admitting that it is perfectly possible to experience and feel things we don't have to pretend to know anything about in order to do so.
Nicely stated. The notion that we need to define something to make it real is restrictive, when there are so many elements of our experience that, by their nature, defy definition, yet they are very real.

[Razorofoccam]

Yellow..

Nice.. Aristotlean logic has a lot to answer for. namely the western world..
Some fool said
'lets go greek' and look what happened. ;)

If everything can be packed into nice pretty boxes.. where does unresolved despair, unrealised love and obsessive paranoia go?
Where does 'dynamic re-evaluation' of subjective experience collated
with other beings' go? [that being science and logic itself]
Understanding.. cannot be 'defined'.
As it includes the definition in itself.
Thus 'definition' is of use as a tool only.

Occam.

[Passionate1]

Well I believe there is a God he just goes by too many names for me to name
I think that God reachs us all in many ways I don't think there's a wrong way to go as long as you have respect for your fellow man or woman than it's cool with me

[Razorofoccam]

Well I believe there is a God he just goes by too many names Passionate..

God has no name.
The names are made by religion. Religion cares not for any god.
Religion. Like any beauracracy cares ony for it's continued existance.
It's 'budget.

jesus was supposed to have said.
" lift a rock and u will find me, split a branch and i am there."

Religion says
"Lift a rock and our budget gets a 20% increase. Split that branch and we all get free dental."

Organised religion KNOWs the following to be TRUTH.
That SCIENCE makes religion a mere shadow bureaucracy

"In due time the ignorant, those with pretentions to mind
and a bag of worthless opinions are rendered as fools
before the method they are too stupid or lazy to try and understand.
And are shown by men flying in the air that men can fly. "

[Mellow Yellow]

Understanding.. cannot be 'defined'.
As it includes the definition in itself.
Thus 'definition' is of use as a tool only.
Yes. Note that historically the most progressive intellectuals, Einstein for example, were labelled heretics, because they didn't conform to the traditional accepted framework of thought at the time.

And yet, think of all the intellects who were never acknowledged in history, because they were unable to convey their knowledge, or if they were, they were unable to capture it in a model that anyone could understand, accept, or perceive any benefit from.

I think we've all but exhausted the tools at our disposal for documenting our known universe, given our limited means with which to monitor it, but we are unlimited in our ability to go beyond the realm of definition, into the ether of higher consciousness and spirituality, provided we can accept the fact there's no way to define it, or impose it upon others (which is often the down side of organised religion).

[Razorofoccam]

I think we've all but exhausted the tools at our disposal for documenting our known universe, given our limited means with which to monitor it.Mellow..

Limited only by your understanding/definition.
I think man will pop a few suprises on your idea.
We are far smarted than beer toting football heads would have you believe.
[x1000]

but we are unlimited in our ability to go beyond the realm of definitionfalse.. NOTHING is UNLIMITED.
Only the duration and existance of reality can claim such.

Occam

[Razorofoccam]

I think we've all but exhausted the tools at our disposal for documenting our known universe, given our limited means with which to monitor it.Mellow..

Limited only by your understanding/definition.
I think man will pop a few suprises on your idea.
We are far smarter than beer toting football heads would have you believe.
[x1000]

but we are unlimited in our ability to go beyond the realm of definitionfalse..
There is ONE ABSOLUTE
REALITY IS AND ALWAYS WILL BE

ALL within reality. Is limited.

Occam

[BillyX]

i believe there cant be a god in the terms of what a god is labeled as in modern religion. If you look at the vast universe what makes us as humans any more special than an ant? Why are us as humans going to have this after life but something like an ant or a elephant wont have the same after life whats ment to happen to them? I dont like the whole idea of heaven and hell and believe that its just a way to control the masses. If there is some sort of god out there it would be more of a universal thing. Id love to believe there is something more to existence other than our mind switching off when our body dies and we are left to rot away in the ground but its hard for me to have any sort of belief when there is no proof what so ever for anything more to happen and the fact that most religion is contradicted by science.

[neodude1212]

i believe there cant be a god in the terms of what a god is labeled as in modern religion. If you look at the vast universe what makes us as humans any more special than an ant? Why are us as humans going to have this after life but something like an ant or a elephant wont have the same after life whats ment to happen to them? I dont like the whole idea of heaven and hell and believe that its just a way to control the masses. If there is some sort of god out there it would be more of a universal thing. Id love to believe there is something more to existence other than our mind switching off when our body dies and we are left to rot away in the ground but its hard for me to have any sort of belief when there is no proof what so ever for anything more to happen and the fact that most religion is contradicted by science.

how about you tell us.

what makes a human different from an ant?

[Razorofoccam]

what makes a human different from an ant?Dude .... we can imagine,and love.

Ants cannot.
Why even ask the question?

Occam

[neodude1212]

Dude .... we can imagine,and love.

Ants cannot.
Why even ask the question?

Occam
I agree with you.

I was trying to make the guy who originally said that realize how stupid it was.

[Razorofoccam]

i believe there cant be a god in the terms of what a god is labeled as in modern religion. True.. But religion has no Exclusive on what god is.
Religion is a poor excuse for a description of something it is too stupid to understand.
People think.. RELIGION is the story..
Soz. organised religion, christianity, islam, exct.
Is a poor excuse for a description.. I could write a better
story in 1/2 an hour.

Put organised religion where it belongs.. in the trash..
Think for yourself.

Occam

[Razorofoccam]

I agree with you.

I was trying to make the guy who originally said that realize how stupid it was.True. I know.. a problem.. yes? Frustrating to the max.

[Mellow Yellow]

Limited only by your understanding/definition.
I think man will pop a few suprises on your idea.
You have a point. Our ability to measure our universe may be limited by the raw materials we have at our disposal for instrumentation, but the interpretations of our measurements and observations are continuously evolving.

Religion is a poor excuse for a description of something it is too stupid to understand.
Religion is also a placebo for cowards to cope with their fear of the unknown.

[Nikalaus]

Excellent Idea for a thread...

Currently I am a what I consider myself to be a Heretic Catholic.

I am feverishly trying to come to grip with the fact that Jesus may have reached his state of consciousness via Ancient wisdom of the East in particular perhaps Vedic Knowledge/Wisdom it would make ALOT of sense. Alot more then Mysteries and Guessing game and praying to the milk jug, with the yes, no, and wait game that is Christianity.

If I do I will merge my catholic roots with Eastern Yogic principles and practices...

[Razorofoccam]

but the interpretations of our measurements and observations are continuously evolving.
Mellow

Well said.

Occam

[Razorofoccam]

Excellent Idea for a thread...

Currently I am a what I consider myself to be a Heretic Catholic.

I am feverishly trying to come to grip with the fact that Jesus may have reached his state of consciousness via Ancient wisdom of the East in particular perhaps Vedic Knowledge/Wisdom it would make ALOT of sense. Alot more then Mysteries and Guessing game and praying to the milk jug, with the yes, no, and wait game that is Christianity.

If I do I will merge my catholic roots with Eastern Yogic principles and practices...Nikalaus

But DID the stone roll aside and he walked away on the 3rd day.
THAT is the story.

Me thinks not.. He was a man in the worst of situations and he
stuck it out to the end without fear.. a great man.

The entire bible is besides a supository of fables;).. a good book..
But dont believe what it says jesus did.. he would not.

I am in awe of the stupidity of those that argue their lives away
on the hair splitting of words in the bible.
What the FuK is a holy trinity..LOL...
'some are too stupid to know they are stupid'
just about sums it up.

Dont feel that you are arrogant in disparaging organised religion.
It really is a load of crap.
The number of people tha believe a thing lends NO validity to that thing.
[ie.. everyone thought the world was flat...lol]

Occam

[neodude1212]

Nikalaus

But DID the stone roll aside and he walked away on the 3rd day.
THAT is the story.

Me thinks not.. He was a man in the worst of situations and he
stuck it out to the end without fear.. a great man.

The entire bible is besides a supository of fables;).. a good book..
But dont believe what it says jesus did.. he would not.

I am in awe of the stupidity of those that argue their lives away
on the hair splitting of words in the bible.
What the FuK is a holy trinity..LOL...
turkeys are in season

Occam
if that is just fiction, it would be odd for the writer to make it so that females found the stone rolled away, considering their standing during the first century.

[Razorofoccam]

females found the stone rolled away, considering their standing during the first century.Who said females did..
Where you there?
Women were in those times. Often chattle.
To imply that as a repressed segment of humanity females would
more oft be speakers of truth depends on if females actually were there.
Personally i think NONE were there and its all fiction.

The ONLY history of such. Is in the bible.
And that is the word of god cause on the flyleaf it says
'this is the word of god'

Beware the man of one book.

Occam

[neodude1212]

Who said females did..
Where you there?
Women were in those times. Often chattle.
To imply that as a repressed segment of humanity females would
more oft be speakers of truth depends on if females actually were there.
Personally i think NONE were there and its all fiction.

that's what Im getting at.

if it IS fiction, then why would they write in a female to discover the tomb empty?

fictionally in the 1st century, wouldn't a man be more suitable for this discovery?

[Razorofoccam]

There was no 'discovery'

[one reference point is NOT history, it is opinion]

Occam

[neodude1212]

There was no 'discovery'

[one reference point is NOT history, it is opinion]

Occam

how do you know?

[Razorofoccam]

how do you know?Dude.
If someone in the street said."london sank into the sea'
And you went home and there was no story of london sliding into the channel and nothing on the net or radio..for days.
Would you still believe that person?

Multiple points of verification IS the core of the human Epistemology.

When ONE book says this or that happened..that a man came back to life.
And there is no independent verification , anywhere, ever.
Methinks only one who WANTED that to be true.. would believe it.

This is called 'method'..try it sometime.

Occam

[neodude1212]

I still dont see how you are making the mental leap to KNOWING that it is not true.

[Razorofoccam]

Dude

Never said i KNEW.
There is a big large distinction between believing and knowing.
I know the glass will fall from the table if i push it one more inch.
I believe there is a city called Moscow.

I do not KNOW anything about the events in pallestine in 32ad.
[and no-one else does either]
I believe the beliefs of others concerning these events borders on
outright fantasy.
So should i believe what others say they know when they can
claim only belief? And a 30th hand belief at that.

This is the point to most of my posts.
Belief is a method...And should not involve any emotion
It is the core of science
That is because it works.

However. 99% of what people believe is believed emotively.

No. i dont believe jesus was resurrected.
[though it is within the realm of the possible]
The 'story' christianity proposes is infantile and contradictory.
But i do believe in a designer.

Occam

[Mellow Yellow]

No. i dont believe jesus was resurrected.
[though it is within the realm of the possible]
The 'story' christianity proposes is infantile and contradictory.
But i do believe in a designer.
Agreed.

There is a big large distinction between believing and knowing.
Yes. Now we're getting to the core of epistemology, "if a tree falls in the woods...", knowledge versus belief.

That which we "know" to be true is based on our experience of observing cause and effect, yet this is still limited by our perceptions and interpretations, which are subject to illusions and delusions.

Contrast that with belief, which is based on our interpretations of others' observations, perceptions, and interpretations. Now the water becomes muddy. A good example is modern day journalism in America, if you call it that.

My belief is there are no universal truths, only consistent observations, which have proven useful in providing us with the tools to manipulate our environment in the realm of science and engineering, economics, psychology, etc.

The ether which is our soul rents the body, whose physical senses are imperfect, governed by physiological processes. Add to that the psyche, which can be altered by any of a number of different substances, emotions, etc., and you can appreciate how limited we are as beings.

The ego is the enemy of knowledge, because it imposes our perceptions on reality, making us rigid and closed-minded.

[Razorofoccam]

Mellow...

Agreed and agreed..

Recently i have faltered in my belief in my fellow human beings...
become angry. With harsh words.

Your post is an oasis of cool water to a thirsty man..

Occam

PS.. 'big large' ..lol.. how did i come up with that... Next
thing you know i'll be saying 'never did nothing'

[Mellow Yellow]

Your post is an oasis of cool water to a thirsty man..

Wow, Thank You! I'll try and keep the ego in check. ;)

Yesterday my wife received her Master's degree, and the speaker of her commencement ceremony went into the basis of knowledge, the whole idea that it's not about us, it's about being curious, probing our foundations, cracking that sucker open and looking at the chunks.

The only path to knowledge is humility.

[Mellow Yellow]

Just to clarify, I wasn't criticizing anyone's lack of humility, just making a point.

I've read that some cultures hold their youth in high esteem, because children and infants are unencumbered by the boundaries of knowledge that are imposed on the intellect of adults by experience. Therefore, they're seen as being omniscient in a sense. The key then is to retain that sense of what I call the childlike mind, where you can shed the shackles of conventional knowledge, and look at things with a different perspective. We can learn a lot from our kids.

As for religion, I don't follow anyone's interpretations literally. Though I see a lot of value in sacred texts such as the Bible, I read it metaphorically. I will have far more respect for organized religion when people get their act together and use it for it's intended purpose, which is spiritual guidance, instead of exploiting it to fulfill an agenda of greed, hatred and corruption.

[Razorofoccam]

Yesterday my wife received her Master's degree, and the speaker of her commencement ceremony went into the basis of knowledge, the whole idea that it's not about us, it's about being curious, probing our foundations, cracking that sucker open and looking at the chunks.
Yellow

Well thats deconstruction...It is a powerfull tool
Curiousity does that.It deconstructs and defines. [logic]
Imagination reconstructs.[Wet logic]
Let her read this or tell her.
I think all comes to this . We deconstruct/define.. then we take that and
collate it with all other knowing to make a new definition.
And sometime a genius pops up like einstein and makes new definitions
from what no others can deconstruct.

In the end.. all we wish is love and purpose.
And while knowledge can be a purpose.
Love is reserved for our fellow beings.

Occam

[Razorofoccam]

We can learn a lot from our kids.And if we do a good job they learn 'well' from us.
To have open minds and be free thinkers.

As for religion, I don't follow anyone's interpretations literally. Though I see a lot of value in sacred texts such as the Bible, I read it metaphorically. I will have far more respect for organized religion when people get their act together and use it for it's intended purpose, which is spiritual guidanceYellow

Exactly

Occam

[themnax]

Yellow:

"... Though I see a lot of value in sacred texts such as the Bible, I read it metaphorically. I will have far more respect for organized religion when people get their act together and use it for it's intended purpose, which is spiritual guidance"

Exactly

Occamwhat's mind boggling, about what mellow said and occam seconded, is that its what revealers of organized beliefs actually said themselves too, and yet people who claim to fallow them, all too often, and personally is suspect their doing so of being a deliberate excuse, don't seem to get it, or pretend not to.

i've met people who are honest in their beleifs who DO get it though. they are the believers who have enough faith to recognize that faith in other beliefs and not have to put them down, out of their own insecurity about their own.

and there are good and honest believers in every faith and nonfaith.

(along with mind blind fanatics whome i don't beleive are really interested in whatever faith they use as an excuse at all, only in using it as the excuse it affords them)

oh how i wish, experience WERE the ONLY thing that narrows and limits imagination and the intellect, and not, as it so often does to so many, the coerciveness of human society collectively. or more speicficaly, the particular cultures that surround so many individually. especially the one, all so out of proportion bloated, that is currently dominating this planet, though even that, may eventually be asimulated by what it has and tends to, preempt and usurp. those 'little' cultures, tucked away in corners of the world, that until recently hid and protected them, may yet be the salvation of our species and our world.

=^^=
.../\...

[Mellow Yellow]

've met people who are honest in their beleifs who DO get it though. they are the believers who have enough faith to recognize that faith in other beliefs and not have to put them down, out of their own insecurity about their own.That's the rub, isn't it, using organized religion (and higher education, for that matter) to promote an agenda that is driven by the ego, which thrives on coercion to validate itself.

One of the most compelling concepts I took away from my freshman Philosophy course in ethics was the idea that people and ideas be treated as ends unto themselves, not as means to an end. That is the essence of integrity.

We cannot hope to get to the fruit of knowledge in it's purest form until we can understand and accept this distinction.

[The manticore]

i belrive in god man what god is i have no idea but when i say god i mean higher power
its just obvious when u look at the world evereythins so perfect how did it come out of nothin, how did the sun come out of nothin whys our planet in exactly the write place and all them tings

[The manticore]

and i think sum ppl are conditioned to think god is bad i.e corruption from religions when they use god to control ppl

[themnax]

i believe that reality is way more wonderfully strainge then any belief has ever depicted it as being. certainly strainge enough for at least one god, if not zillions of them. strainge enough for one god to be both one and zillions at the same time, and still not even that scratching the surface of straingeness.

nor is that even neccessarily the biggest or most central thing about it. i mean we really don't know. we really don't KNOW anything but science. everything else is speculation. but. you see that's the thing is, reality, existence isn't limited by or to knowledge in any way.

so it doesn't matter what we think we know, other then what we can use of that knowledge, whatever actually is. but by not mattering, i mean in the sense of what anyone tells us or thinks they know, isn't the biggining or ending of anything.

only that some things do work in known ways, but that is all that is known, and that is only part of what is. the universe is so big and we live on only this one little grain of sand in it, so what could we possibly know?

it isn't that any of our guesses CAN'T be, its just that all of them togather, because they ARE guesses, paint a picture that's just so unlikely because the possibilities are so infinite, that even all of our guesses put togather are still like one tiney needle in this endless haystack.

=^^=
.../\...

[Itsdarts]

i belrive in god man what god is i have no idea but when i say god i mean higher power
its just obvious when u look at the world evereythins so perfect how did it come out of nothin, how did the sun come out of nothin whys our planet in exactly the write place and all them tings
Its much easier to just believe "God did it" isn't it? This way we don't have to worry about learning Evolution, Biology, Physics, Cosmology, Chemestry etc... What a pain in the ass all that stuff is Huh? By the way, that IS how all this got here, by the sciences I described above. You are looking through a very narrow tube if you think everythins so perfect. This all didn't come from "nothin", it came from matter/energy that has always existed as far as we know. The Big Bang is what started the formation of atoms, which started the formation of more complex matter just by running into each other. We know this because it can be observed in outer space all the time. Our Sun (just one of bazillions of stars) was formed out of gasses and other molecules condensing into larger and larger matter until the point of density that the weight of itself ignites and its inner core starts to expell hydrogen and hellium. It will die someday, billions of years from now and this planet will not exist and unless we move, we as humans won't exist either.

In short, everything is far from "perfect" even if you could coherantly define perfect. Everything is made from the exact same stuff the Sun is made of, we are all star dust. The atoms in your body have existed since the big bang and will continue to exist in separate pieces scattered throughout the universe. About the only thing we don't know is how exactly life formed. Once it did form, we do know how we got here, through evolution. There is no reason to assume a "god did it".

[Razorofoccam]

One of the most compelling concepts I took away from my freshman Philosophy course in ethics was the idea that people and ideas be treated as ends unto themselves, not as means to an end. That is the essence of integrity.


Mellow

Wow, You actually gained something from ethics 101 ;)
And your "essence of integrity" had me 'still' in thought for quite a while.
[ie like an comp lockup in XP.lol]
And i see that you are correct.. For example . my idea that reality has
no limmit in duration is simply an idea. It has no function but as an idea.
Knowing it or not effects nothing else in practical terms.
And thus you are far wiser than i was at your age...i was a fool..
And still am in many respects.

Thank you

occam

[Razorofoccam]

oh how i wish, experience WERE the ONLY thing that narrows and limits imagination and the intellect, and not, as it so often does to so many, the coerciveness of human society collectively

themnax

you and me both my brother.

occam

[Razorofoccam]

About the only thing we don't know is how exactly life formed. Once it did form, we do know how we got here, through evolution. There is no reason to assume a "god did it".

Detroit rock city

No, there is not. Not a shred of evidence that 'god' made it all.
But, there is organisation... and this comes from laws.. laws that
seem to BE from the beginning of our universe. HARDWIRED
IF all was chaos. how did such exact and ballanced laws form from it?
i suggest evolution... but evolution requires generations...

? 'suggestions'

occam

[Mellow Yellow]

oh how i wish, experience WERE the ONLY thing that narrows and limits imagination and the intellect, and not, as it so often does to so many, the coerciveness of human society collectively

Indeed, how ironic that it is experience that sets us free, while simultaneously imprisoning us.

I appreciate the compliment, Occam (right back at cha), but I'm not so sure I'll possess the "wisdom" I have now in a few years when I'm your age, based on the model of diminishing returns I presented earlier, *lol*, but I will do my best in the endeavor, distancing myself from the intellectual coercion imposed by society, keeping the mind limber as well as the body, by thinking like a child, and acting on it whenever possible.

[Itsdarts]

Detroit rock city

No, there is not. Not a shred of evidence that 'god' made it all.
But, there is organisation... and this comes from laws.. laws that
seem to BE from the beginning of our universe. HARDWIRED
IF all was chaos. how did such exact and ballanced laws form from it?
i suggest evolution... but evolution requires generations...

? 'suggestions'

occam
If energy and matter can't be created or destroyed (basic law of physics) then it leads one to assume that energy/matter have always existed, just possibly not in forms we see today. And if we assume energy/matter has always existed, then the laws that appear to govern energy/matter have as well.

One of the prevailing theories as to what was "before the big bang" is Super String Theory and with that M-theory. Click here for a rather simplified explanation of these theories (http://www.wisegeek.com/what-are-superstrings.htm). If these theories turn out to be true, this could account for "generations" of universes. Mathamatically, these theories are true, but obviously without more empirical evidence (observing strings for starters), some scientists reject its truthfulness. As for order and chaos, this is only relevent to the observer, in otherwords, its a value humans place on apparent patterns. We see patterns in the sky and call them constellations, they somewhat resemble various animals, people, etc "from our perspective" but if we were to move to someplace in space where we would be looking at the same constellation at a 90 degree angle from where we are now, none of the stars would resemble or make up the current view we see now. The patterns are only apparent from our view. We can take this further and see a "whirlpool" pattern of various galaxies but if we step back further, we can see many galaxies on no apparent order or pattern. Their placement is random through out the universe, with smaller or larger clusters all over the place in no apparent order. Yet other galaxies are eliptical and others yet, just clouds with no apparent shape. No two humans are exactly a like, not even twins, where is the order in that? See, its all releative to the observer. If there were no observers, would the universe exist? Things that make you go, Hmmmmmm.

:cheers2:

[Gravity]

i belrive in god man what god is i have no idea but when i say god i mean higher power
its just obvious when u look at the world evereythins so perfect how did it come out of nothin, how did the sun come out of nothin whys our planet in exactly the write place and all them tings

Cause if it wasn't we wouldn't be typing here back and forth asking these questions.

Your argument goes something like this.. "since everything so perfect (which it isn't), it came out of nothing (how do you know that btw?), same for the sun, how did it come out of nothing (where you getting this from?)

If the planet wasn't in the exact place and all them things you mentioned aren't true, we wouldn't be here to begin with.

Your argument is based on ignorance, since some things sound unexplainable and can't be explained by scientific research, the easiest answer, and most pleasing answer people like to hear is the "goddit" answer.

Whats wrong with just saying "I don't know"?

[Gravity]

and i think sum ppl are conditioned to think god is bad i.e corruption from religions when they use god to control ppl

Religions and Gods have been used to control people for eons. It used to be the political structure, so yeah religion controls people whether people are conditioned to think god is bad or good, either way.

[Razorofoccam]

If energy and matter can't be created or destroyed (basic law of physics) then it leads one to assume that energy/matter have always existed, just possibly not in forms we see today. And if we assume energy/matter has always existed, then the laws that appear to govern energy/matter have as well.
Things that make you go, Hmmmmmm.
:cheers2:

Itsdarts

What i propose is that yes.. laws always exist. they must.
or no structure can exist.
But maybe said laws are not allways the same universe to universe.
Maybe.. 'successfull' verses.. those that reproduce.
carry law with them in their offspring.
example.. matter falls out of this verse we are in through a
singularity. and makes a new verse..with slightly different law.
Thus i propose the only successfull verses are ones that produce singularities..
like ours.

occam

[Itsdarts]

Itsdarts

What i propose is that yes.. laws always exist. they must.
or no structure can exist.
But maybe said laws are not allways the same universe to universe.
Maybe.. 'successfull' verses.. those that reproduce.
carry law with them in their offspring.
example.. matter falls out of this verse we are in through a
singularity. and makes a new verse..with slightly different law.
Thus i propose the only successfull verses are ones that produce singularities..
like ours.

occamNot sure if you read the link I provided, but it says something very similar, that gravity "leaks" into and or out of our universe into and/or out of others. It explains the weak force of gravity compared to the other three major forces, electromagnatism, strong and weak nuclear forces. Super String theory, if proven true, is the theory of everything. Other dimensions outside of the 4 we know of, if they exist, will help prove super string theory and on paper, it mathematically works, now we wait for empirical evidence.

[Razorofoccam]

Isdarts

1.Yes.. but i dont agree time is a dimension.. which throws it all out of whack.
A dimension has extension.[no?]. even if in the realm of plank.
time has no dimension,, it is a process.
2.Humanity is too immature to have a theory of everything.
we are still driving around in vehicles that burn dead vegitable matter.
i mean, some scientists still believe in gravitons..lol...;)


then again, i could be full of caca

occam

[Itsdarts]

Isdarts

1.Yes.. but i dont agree time is a dimension.. which throws it all out of whack.
A dimension has extension.[no?]. even if in the realm of plank.
time has no dimension,, it is a process.
2.Humanity is too immature to have a theory of everything.
we are still driving around in vehicles that burn dead vegitable matter.
i mean, some scientists still believe in gravitons..lol...;)


then again, i could be full of caca

occam1.) I'm not sure if they consider time a dimension, but nothing is getting thrown out of whack. As I said, on paper, through math, the theory works, the evidence (albeit weak) is the math.

2.) I suppose thats your personal opinion, and I disagree and think HUmanity needs to know the truth (if indeed this is the truth) more now than ever. A graviton = A hypothetical particle postulated to be the quantum of gravitational interaction and presumed to have an indefinitely long lifetime, zero electric charge, and zero rest mass. Black holes use to be hypothetical.

[themnax]

i believe in the basic inhierent and intrinsic goodness of straingeness. statistically this is borne out over commonness and familiarity. its also healthier for the mind. which need the nourisment of accessable straingeness and interestingness to explore.

=^^=
.../\...

[Mellow Yellow]

gravity "leaks" into and or out of our universe into and/or out of others.

Is it possible black holes provide the mechanism for this phenomenon?

It explains the weak force of gravity compared to the other three major forces, electromagnatism, strong and weak nuclear forces.

How is that?

Is it possible electromagnetic waves leak in and out of our universe as well?

time has no dimension,, it is a process.

Time has no dimension because it is a dimension, being a fundamental atomic component of reality as we define it. You can't break down time into sub-components (or can you?), just as you can't break down fundamental measures such as length, for example. Furthermore, there are many properties that can be defined as dimensions, it just comes down to the framework of your model.

Humanity is too immature to have a theory of everything.
we are still driving around in vehicles that burn dead vegitable matter.
i mean, some scientists still believe in gravitons..lol...

We're barbarians when you think about it, I mean we can't even get along or elect politicians with social conscience, let alone proclaim the existence of god.

i believe in the basic inhierent and intrinsic goodness of straingeness. statistically this is borne out over commonness and familiarity. its also healthier for the mind. which need the nourisment of accessable straingeness and interestingness to explore.

Familiarity is the enemy of enlightenment. Only when we step beyond the realm of traditional thought by entertaining seemingly absurd ideas can we expand our threshold of knowledge.

[Itsdarts]

Is it possible black holes provide the mechanism for this phenomenon? It is my understanding that a Black Hole is really just a super dense dead sun that possibly started as a neutron star and over time, sucked in more suns (mass) and that its density is so great that even light can't escape. I've heard estimates that Neutron stars are so dense that a teaspoon full would weight more than the earth.




How is that?

Is it possible electromagnetic waves leak in and out of our universe as well?

Don't know, I'm not a physicist and the article I quoted didn't go into detail since it was written for the layman, sorry.


Time has no dimension because it is a dimension, being a fundamental atomic component of reality as we define it. You can't break down time into sub-components (or can you?), just as you can't break down fundamental measures such as length, for example. Furthermore, there are many properties that can be defined as dimensions, it just comes down to the framework of your model. Here is an easy description of time as a dimension. One should remember that "Dimensions" in physics aren't necessarily spatial (x, y, z).

[Razorofoccam]

Lets dump the dimension crap..
There are no dimensions.. there are just descriptions.

occam

[Mellow Yellow]

There are no dimensions.. there are just descriptions.

True. Descriptions, definitions..."Dimensions" are a fabrication, yard sticks with which we measure things, tools for the intellectual "elite" to snub their noses at one another.

I'm not a physicist, but I do speculate, based on what I've read, and speculation begets enlightenment, regardless of level of education. Education, after all, is a fabrication of our culture, and thus is limiting. There isn't necessarily a correlation between education (a label) and knowledge (a reality). In a world devoid of "right" and "wrong", enlightenment is easy.

[Razorofoccam]

I'm not a physicist, but I do speculate

You me and einstein
science hates einstein,, he dreamed. and in dreaming reworked our reality
who works out field theory on a table napkin.. albert

lol

conservation HATES us..
lets rock
humanity always needs a kick in the pants.. it is inherently stultified.
without crazy people.. we would still be grubbing for tubers in he dirt of asia.
It is the 'insane' that have given us our techno world..
Its the assholes who turned it into what it is today.. consumerism.


occam

[Razorofoccam]

mellow yellow is an enemy of the darleks.. EXTERMINATE.

[IMjustfishin]

i think u loose any all consciousness. anyone agree?

[behindthesun93]

harmonizing with nature is my religion \o/

[themnax]

invisible <> imaginary
invisible = unknown
imaginary = what people think they know about it

=^^=
.../\...

[you-wont-know]

I'm not really sure. Sometimes I believe that when we die, we cease to exist, nothing happens, we stop thinking, dreaming e.t.c, but at times I believe that there is some form of afterlife, and that when we die, we go to be with out family and friends.

[you-wont-know]

Actually, i would like to re-define my belief on the after life.

I dont necisserily (Sp?) believe in god, well not a god with robes and a beard, but i believe that god is connected with the universe, and that god is the earth, energy, love, fear, light, darkness. As for my views of heaven and hell. I believe that if a person dies unexpectedly, and they are bound to some form of earthly action e.g. Drinking alchohol, then they remain on earth untill they accept they must move on. I believe heaven to be a place of joy, where you are re-united with family and friends, as for the look, I believe it to be a place connected to your heart, but i cant give to much detail on that because i could go on for-ever. As for hell, well, I believe that hell is what people believe it to be. I don't believe that hell if fiery, and sinners will burn in the fire for all of eternity, nor for that fact do i believe that hell is eternal. Everybody on this planet has an idea of hell, and it may be a figure of speach, but when something bad happens to a person and they say ''I'm in hell'' or ''This is hell'', this could be their hell, where they will go if they believe they are going there. An example; A man kills someone and years later, dies. Upon his death he sees that what he did was wrong and truley wants to set his actions right, upon dying he finds himself bound to the person he killed, and this person cannot see him, he constantly tries to apologise and ask for his forgiveness, but the person he killed does not forgive him or cannot see him. This is what i believe to be the killers form of Hell.

As i said before, sometimes i do think to myself, ''What if thats it, you die and nothing else happens, you cease to exist?''. Well people often say that you being conscious is due to electrical messages travelling along nerves, and thinking is a process of chemical reactions. Once you die, all processes in the body stop, including the electrical messages and chemical reactions. But who's to say that when you die, the brain stops functioning all together. There could be a small portion of the brain that still operates, nobody knows. All i say is take each day as it comes, dont put to much thought into the afterlife, Love, learn, earn money and enjoy yourself.

[Okiefreak]

I'm not really sure. Sometimes I believe that when we die, we cease to exist, nothing happens, we stop thinking, dreaming e.t.c, but at times I believe that there is some form of afterlife, and that when we die, we go to be with out family and friends.I'm inclined to agree, bust let's face it. The evidence is flimsy, and nobody knows for sure. We're all just guessing.

[heeh2]

i believe in the wonder that is life

[Greengirl]

I belive in beer,i belive in weed,i belive in my headphones, i belive in icecream and i belive in punk

[Indica.Skye]

hmm i believe in nature, love, peace, music, and drugs. haha

[Nestor]

everything in this world makes no difference to me.

[interweb]

I went to a Catholic Church as a child, then switched to an non-denominational Church and eventually was baptized there several years back. Just lately from last year to this point now I've been thinking quite alot about it all.. First of all I work so much that the only time I was going to church was on Christmas Eve. I haven't been to church once this year, although I look forward to going on Christmas Eve. But anyways, maybe it's the lack of going to church or just the constant thinking. I can only hope that there is a God and a Heaven. It would be such a wonderful thing. Yet I would also like some proof that God existed, yes there is the Bible, but that was wrote after he died by other people. I'm not saying I totally disbelieve, because I can only hope that it's true, but I've just been thinking about it all lately and I'm just unsure. An agnostic nonetheless.

[Reefer Rogue]

I believe in belief

[StonerBill]

i believe everything exists

just not necessarily in the way that anyone considers

because some things are just concepts

but are real 'things' none the less

[all hallows]

i am my own god. there is no god, no devil, no externalization of the ego to be worshipped. nature reigns supreme.

[jmt]

I believe that if your going to wear a thong you should fill out an application

[all hallows]

I believe that if your going to wear a thong you should fill out an application

hahahaha!

[orison319]

http://anonmusic.net/XMAS1.jpg

[jmt]

hahahaha!

http://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b185/ibanez33150/5cec0f71.gif

[Razorofoccam]

LOL

You hippy wannabe tards..
I believe in this and i believe in that.
crap.

You believe that the mull bowl should remain full.

as do i. ;)

occcam

[jannethelizardman]

I believe god doesnt exist, hes just a tool for mass control of the people by a small few at the top tier. We are nature, and until we can believe in nature we're all fucked. Learn to love life as you percieve it, here and now, with the ever expanding knowledge of the human consciousness as a guide but not an absolute truth. That and pizza. Lots and lots weed and of pizza.