Oh, there's my doppleganger again! I thought I kept you in the closet? Darn, I knew I should've replaced that old padlock...
Sorry Tig, didn't realize I was FORCING you to obey my standards. Gee, I need to pay more attention to myself. Bad James. ;)
Printable View
Oh, there's my doppleganger again! I thought I kept you in the closet? Darn, I knew I should've replaced that old padlock...
Sorry Tig, didn't realize I was FORCING you to obey my standards. Gee, I need to pay more attention to myself. Bad James. ;)
I think part of your "problem" is that you are equating this stuff to today when you should be looking back into history to determine "why" religion came about. In short, the moment any species stops contemplating their navel and begins to question their origin without any factual basis there is nowhere for the conclusion to end up except at a point where "reasonable assumptions" fill in for unknown fact thus leading down a flawed path of logic to the "fairy tales". That's not too difficult to grasp now is it..... ;) Furthermore it is perfectly logical for this to occur. Until other species begin, (and maybe some have and believe that there is a supreme being), to contemplate their origin then, yes, we will be the only species requiring a "fairy tale" to live in an ordered society.Quote:
But that answer stops short for me. The period comes too soon. That means our species is the only species that requires a lie to survive as a community. In order for us to evolve as an ordered society, we have had to build upon fairy tales. Is this truly logical?
The word "apparently" tells all for you there.... You have no fact to back that up so you are placing "reasonable assumption" and then running the path of logic to a potentially flawed conclusion.Quote:
following apparently pre-programmed instinct draw to the basic same conclusions, with only details differing? Is this logical? Or is this a genetic arrow pointing in the direction of something much higher and very creative?
I did no such thing. I made no conclusion based on the fact that all cups claim to hide the prize. I was not limited by a box that led me to look into all the cups. I took a more direct approach and looked at the claims for the prize and determined that the prize itself was flawed so it doesn't matter which cup I find it under it isn't the prize that was advertized.Quote:
However, you conclude preemptively that since all cups claim to hide that prize, that therefore there really is no prize...when in fact one of them does have the prize, you just have to find it through a process of critical thought, testing, and deduction.
I would agree with that statement but I would add that it teaches you to think for yourself within the confines of the expectation that the prize is as advertized. Since you have that expectation you are in a box and that box limits your thought process to the single conclusion that a supreme being exists. You aren't considering the possibility that one doesn't. You have made up your mind and refuse to test the theory any further..... That's bad science.Quote:
I'd suggest, it's an exercise to teach you how to think for yourself.
This begs the questions:-Quote:
Mine is the only one that answers all my questions; the others have failed one way or another.
1. All your questions.... What about all _the_ questions?
2. Have you ever asked the question "What if I'm wrong, what is the alternative?"
Endorphins are wonderful things..... Go for a run.... You'll get the same effect.... ;)Quote:
only demonstrated and experienced.
See above.... You are escaping nothing since all your thoughts revolve around the existence of a supreme being your box is laid out for you right there. I have no box. I worked from a question not a premise, "is there a supreme being?" as opposed to your system where you ask "which is the supreme being?"Quote:
And that's how I'm escaping both boxes of religion and faithlessness.
Not being "pissy" but, for the second time I have faith, therefore I am not faithless..... The fact that what I have faith in is a perfectly reasonable belief that the answers to all things are out there and do not require the intervention of a supreme being and when we are advanced enough we will understand our universe, where it came from and why it is here. Is that such an awful thing to believe?
So, you've chosen your _life_ and the tool with which it is governed. But should you become disillusioned you still have choices.....Quote:
I can't switch because it defies the logic I've discovered.
Don't ever take up computer forensics..... <LOL> What you say here is that you will make the evidence fit the scenario.... That's bad science and even worse investigatory technique because you will convict the wrong person of the crime.Quote:
Just because something isn't explainable doesn't mean God did it. First, you have to look at each instance, and way all the possible causes, then deduce which one fits. In the right cases, God fits, though the other options are possible at first assessment -- but the other options fail to answer the questions that the "God puzzle piece" does. As the great Sherlock said, once all possibilties have been knocked out, whatever is left, no matter how improbable, must be true.
Just because a piece fits into a jigsaw puzzle does not mean it is the correct piece for that puzzle. It could, quite conceivably be the correct shape and fit exactly, but it comes from another puzzle and the picture, while appearing correct is wrong in some small area.
Sherlock, while being quite remarkable was also flawed..... The number of possibilities relies entirely upon information. Each peice of information represents a possibility. But if you lack a peice of information then your improbable truth may not be the truth - it would simply be the only remaining conclusion that could be drawn - regardless of it's accuracy.
We've discussed this.... Order is an illusion. The universe is in chaos. It's just that chaos does not change rapidly thus there appears to be order where there is none.Quote:
Logic -- when we see order and beauty, no matter how subjectively we each see it -- there's always creativity behind it. So why is the big picture the exception? Why is the big picture the only picture that does not have a painter? Is this logical?
What creativity? The beauty I see is from the randomness of chaos that allows the evolution of species that succeed in their environment. Within each species the ability to evolve is also the result of chaos that allow the species to mutate slightly and then if the mutation succeeds then it has evolved, if not the species, (or that mutation), dies. There's nothing "creative" about it.... It's marvellous.... But it's chaos.
You don't know the half of it.... Step out of your box and look around for a while if you want to really understand how insignificant and irrelevant we really are in the universe. <LOL>Quote:
Furthermore, my belief only continues to reinforce how inadequate and lacking of control I really am.
This is one of my sides morons that I alluded to in a previous post..... He's not prepared to broaden his horizons by reading what was written he simply wished to be rude and obnoxious and tell you to leave him alone. You see he feels threatened by you because he understands his limited intellect would not be able to withstand your superior reasoning ability and he would end up wasting his time in church every sunday instead of getting rid of the hangover he got on saturday night.Quote:
Once again, I don't feel like reading all the post so, here's the sum up. **** your religion. If you choose to believe it, fine, but don't make everybody else adhere to the rules set up by the bullshit you believe.
Demonic, you're a ****wit. The reasons you won't read the posts are twofold:-
1. Many words have more than five letters.....
2. Even if you could read the words the concepts would require you to go back and get your GED before you could understand them.....
Go away little boy.....
Angelic: Yeah, even with the customary moron it appears we are the only two enjoying the conversation.....
You are incorrect with your last assumption; I am also enjoying the conversation. The reason I haven't posted is because a) I don't have anything valueable to add at the moment, and b) it's difficult to post when you're sleeping or at work :PQuote:
Angelic: Yeah, even with the customary moron it appears we are the only two enjoying the conversation.....
I have to agree with your assessment of Demonic...it actually took a lot of willpower to stop myself from negging him (I know that antipoints do not matter that much, but it's the principle of the thing. They are your chance to show approval or disapproval without posting). I mean, what a stupid post. Why would you admit to not having read the previous post?
ac
Oh, Demon1c (PM288) has had it out for me ever since I hurt his feelings a while back, go fig. I imagine he'll grow up sooner or later. If not, at least it's a break from the intellectual speak eh? ;)
Tiger, I must concede that even though I disagree with yoru assessment, I admire your thinking. I can see why you've drawn the conclusions you have, and it does make sense. Let me see if I can tackle the latest without writing another War and Peace post (probably not!)...
Actually, I think can answer several points with the same answer, but I warn you, this is where I start to sound like a lunatic. :D
Quote:
In short, the moment any species stops contemplating their navel and begins to question their origin without any factual basis there is nowhere for the conclusion to end up except at a point where "reasonable assumptions" fill in for unknown fact thus leading down a flawed path of logic to the "fairy tales".
Quote:
You have no fact to back that up so you are placing "reasonable assumption" and then running the path of logic to a potentially flawed conclusion.
Ok, remember when I said that logic only takes me so far in my conclusion? It reaches that chasm that it cannot cross (for, as you would say, lack of information), and then you're stuck. That's why I emphasize that I don't rely on logic alone -- I let it take me up to the point as near to the conclusion as possible, then something else fills the rest. Now by saying this, I'm about to break some serious logic and science rules:Quote:
Just because a piece fits into a jigsaw puzzle does not mean it is the correct piece for that puzzle. It could, quite conceivably be the correct shape and fit exactly, but it comes from another puzzle and the picture, while appearing correct is wrong in some small area.
Once logic has gone as far as it can alone, faith takes over. Just like trusting the friend that you know enough to know is trustworthy (but of course can never know everything about), you have faith that you can make it the rest of the way across the chasm without relying solely on logic. It's the part that you experience that's indescribable (and without the side affects of endorphins) and beautifully illogical. It's feeling God in a prayer, having a prayer answered, having something happen to you that isn't even remotely, logically realistic, many of the otherwise unexplained things that transcend logic. You feel, you connect, your spirit fills in the gaps that your mind cannot grasp. It's the spirit within that crosses the chasm, affirming that yeah, you're on the right path indeed. It's in an inner, intuitive knowing that you've found truth.
In other words, once you reach that point, "you just know".
Now you can easily blow holes all through that from a science/logic perspective, but the laborotory of life has taught me it's valid. God has equipped me to do stuff I was never able to before finding Him. I've felt things indescribable that I can't express adequately here.
So, that leaves anyone looking at me from the outside to come to one of three conclusions: 1) either I have something interesting here, or 2) I'm misunderstanding some emotional/psychological phenemona, or 3) I'm wacko. That, I can only leave you to judge for yourself. Hmm...though, regardless of which one you go with, I am a bit wacko, but that's just for amusement. ;)
Sucky answer for a logic discussion, so it leaves me saying, you just gotta experience it to know what I'm saying. It requires giving it a try and seeing what happens.
[quote]1. All your questions.... What about all _the_ questions?[/qutoe]
Um...we could start a thread on each one. Where to start? As you can probably tell already, I'm full of them.
Yes, I have. The alternatives are:Quote:
2. Have you ever asked the question "What if I'm wrong, what is the alternative?"
1. Another religion is right. If so, if that religion is the only right religion, I'm screwed.
2. There is no God. Then I'm following nothing and my life is in vain as I've lived a self-decieved existance.
But that which is going on in me spiritually affirms that I'm on track. If God is, then this is His way of saying "'atta boy"; if God isn't, I'm a lunatic.
Sorry, bad wording on my part.Quote:
Not being "pissy" but, for the second time I have faith, therefore I am not faithless
I forgot about that. Too much data to retain for my limited mind perhaps? I remember that now though.Quote:
We've discussed this.... Order is an illusion. The universe is in chaos. It's just that chaos does not change rapidly thus there appears to be order where there is none.
Is that not statistically impossible? Or, I should rephrase -- scientifically, not much is impossible, but it's very, very, very, very exponentially improbable. The chances of atoms coming together randomly amidst chaos in such a way as to create an entire world of life that is ordered at least to an extent (ordered nervous, circulatory, muscular system, etc., all strategically in place to allow for survival). Is that no less outlandish an idea as a supreme being? It takes me back to what I said before, no matter what conclusion you come to, they all sound crazy.Quote:
The beauty I see is from the randomness of chaos that allows the evolution of species that succeed in their environment.
Heh, in fact, all I have to do is look up to realize that. You see how inifinately distant the expanse of sky stretches, and you realize "Crap, I'm really little!"Quote:
You don't know the half of it.... Step out of your box and look around for a while if you want to really understand how insignificant and irrelevant we really are in the universe.
Hmm...I think I've reached the point where you'd say I'm stomping my foot, heh heh...
Well, yes.... It does make it all a little too easy and actually proves my point about "reasonable assumptions". Your reasonable assumption that when you reach the point where, due to lack of knowledge, logic fails you isn't unreasonable at all. But in saying that you need to understand that you are a) giving up on the quest to determine the actual truth, and b) you are accepting that the logic by which you live is flawed due to the use of your reasonable assumption. I can live with that, I understand that and it's why I don't go running around telling all believers that they are wrong and that they are stupid, which some of those in my belief system do..... But let's face it, the believers of any religion have their idiots too.... the list is a bit too long..... ;)Quote:
Now you can easily blow holes all through that from a science/logic perspective,
Unquantifiable, therefore illegitimate..... :DQuote:
"you just know"
Messing with your mind here...... What happens if I create a religion, (remember, a religion is a tool that manages a life... Your words and I think you are dead on), that says here's the religion, here's the supreme being, we are right... but all the other religions are valid too.... Wouldn't that be a cool one?Quote:
1. Another religion is right. If so, if that religion is the only right religion, I'm screwed.
Why would your life be in vain? let's be sensible.... neother of us are going to amount to a hill of beans in terms of history.... But if you've lived a good life, within your good morals what was wasted.... I can see from these discussion we have that you think about things.... You may be flawed in your conclusion ;) but you think.... thought is valuable and productive... thus you life will have been valuable and productive...... Never demean yourself or your existence.... ask yourself if you could do better and if you decide you could and that, more importantly, you could then go ahead and do better..... There's no problem with that....Quote:
2. There is no God. Then I'm following nothing and my life is in vain as I've lived a self-decieved existance.
[Edit1]
Wait a minute.... I pressed page up and it posted.... I'm not done with you yet... <LOL>
[/Edit1]
[Edit2]
To an athiest that's a lot like me calling you "religious nut". The implication is that my lack of theism makes me inadequate or unintelligent..... That's the way it gets used so often... It niggles the crap out of me because the poeple that usually use it are less than brainless.Quote:
faithless
I'm not sure that you understand evolution then..... Let me try to explain the process and why it works.... Damn, I'm loving this conversation..... *hehe*Quote:
Is that not statistically impossible? Or, I should rephrase -- scientifically, not much is impossible, but it's very, very, very, very exponentially improbable.
Before I start remember that this process takes place over millions of years and therefore, at a minimum, several millions of generations.
Take a single species, we'll call them ugs because it is easy to type.....
Generation 1 of the ugs spawns generation 2. In the process there are 10% mutations in the genetic material - they are "mistakes"... of these mistakes 99% die because they are less well suited to the environment, (let's say they need more water and water is scarce). But 1% don't need more water, they need a little less so they survive. They breed in with the remaining 90% of the ugs and pass the "less water" gene into the species... 90% of the offspring of the ugs still suceeds.... but they have the additional "less water" gene..... So now we are one generation 3 of the ugs and they have changed slightly.... There are still 10% mutations in each generation but only the ones that work within the environment survive and pass on the genes.... This process continues from generation to generation with the failed mutations being unable to pass on their characteristics.....
In short..... for every species living and well there are a billion failed mutations of that species.... It's the ones that are better suited to the environment that survive and pass on the characteristics that make them successful..... Statistics are relevant.... perfectly.... If we had the data for every mutation of every species we currently haveon the planet we would clearly see the progression of each species from their origin to their current form.....
It's chaos..... but the appearance of order in any given century is obvious.....
Neither of us are stamping our feet.... which is exactly what makes the discussion interesting.... The problem is that without other input, (intelligent input), we are, again, reaching a conclusion to our discussion since neither of us are intent on changing the other persons mind, both of us can accept our differences and the subject is, technically, moot since neither of us have _all_ the information..... Yet.... it's interesting to me to have a proper discourse on the issue with someone who can accept discourse without malice..... So rare nowadays.... So rare.....
[/Edit2]
[Edit3]
Overdue, I'll let you get back and formulate an answer..... It's fair
[/Edit3]
I think that a valid point here, is that what you refer to as "reasonable assumption", Christians equate to as Faith. To break it down to it's origin, Christians prefer to put their Faith in God, who created the universe; as opposed to non-Christians who put their faith in a giant ball of mud and gas that just happened to explode and just happened to result in our current "chaos driven" universe. It's all a matter of perspective.Quote:
Originally posted here by Tiger Shark
[B]Well, yes.... It does make it all a little too easy and actually proves my point about "reasonable assumptions". Your reasonable assumption that when you reach the point where, due to lack of knowledge, logic fails you isn't unreasonable at all. But in saying that you need to understand that you are a) giving up on the quest to determine the actual truth, and b) you are accepting that the logic by which you live is flawed due to the use of your reasonable assumption. I can live with that, I understand that and it's why I don't go running around telling all believers that they are wrong and that they are stupid, which some of those in my belief system do..... But let's face it, the believers of any religion have their idiots too.... the list is a bit too long..... ;)
Lots of religions have been created, but remember that Christians know that the basis of their religion is based upon God's word, and God inspired an individual to write His Word, as opposed to someone just creating a religion. It takes Faith to understand this though.Quote:
Messing with your mind here...... What happens if I create a religion, (remember, a religion is a tool that manages a life... Your words and I think you are dead on), that says here's the religion, here's the supreme being, we are right... but all the other religions are valid too.... Wouldn't that be a cool one?
Don't have time for more. I'll have to look again tomorrow.
Rare indeed...My closing thoughts then:
You're telling me. I believe the names Jimmy Swaggart and Pat Robertson came up elsewhere...It is an extremely long list, and I distance myself as far away from it as possible I really wonder where those guys get their Bibles from, cuz they evidently say different things than mine...Quote:
But let's face it, the believers of any religion have their idiots too.... the list is a bit too long.....
I appreciate you're not finding my explanation outlandishly wacko though. That puts you in a more respectable light than many of your peers.
Yep. And that's the insane beauty of it.Quote:
Unquantifiable, therefore illegitimate.....
It would. However, whatever purpose exists for it not being that way would then not be met, and I can only wonder what potentialy new problems that would arise consequently.Quote:
Messing with your mind here...... What happens if I create a religion, (remember, a religion is a tool that manages a life... Your words and I think you are dead on), that says here's the religion, here's the supreme being, we are right... but all the other religions are valid too.... Wouldn't that be a cool one?
I do understand evolution -- I've read up on it quite a bit, especially in a wonderful debate that was exchanged between a rather irate evolutionist writer and Apologetics Press. However, evolution had to start somewhere, and something had to come from nothing, life from lifelessness, at some point in time (I believe the philosophers call this the "Cosmological Argument"). The statistical probability of the Big Bang or some other random event creating such complex life haphazardly is unlikely to the point of being mind-boggling. Either something came from nothing, or we are in a state of infinite regression looking back in time -- both options being entirely illogical. That means either there's a third option I don't know of that would make this a false dichotomy, or there's something really wierd going on regarding our origin.
There is order apparent consistently across centuries -- the order of complex systems in the human body -- the ordered symmetry of a butterfly -- complex ecosystems, etc.
I didn't know this. I would've avoided that wording had I realized that. I meant faithless in the context of the way I used it in that particular sentence, i.e. "faith in God" vs. "no faith in God", or faith vs. faithlessness, to abbreviate that. Not faithlessness as in no faith in anything. That's unfortunate that other believers use that as an attack point, and it demonstrates their inability to understand the other side and respectfully counter it. But, these are the same people who've grown up on Pat Robertson instead of the actual pages of the Bible itself. :)Quote:
To an athiest that's a lot like me calling you "religious nut". The implication is that my lack of theism makes me inadequate or unintelligent..... That's the way it gets used so often... It niggles the crap out of me because the poeple that usually use it are less than brainless.
One point I have failed to bring up, unfortunately, because it's actually the most important point of all, is the centerpiece of Jesus. I suppose that's something to save for another day's discussion. Really, all other points aside, christianity either crumbles or stands on the basis of who Jesus is and what happened to him. If Jesus is not who he claimed to be, then there are a lot of very strange things that happened that require explanation, mainly questions regarding the risks his disciples took and the skill of the Roman military that inveitably comes into question.
I pretty much agree with Angelic here. Probably because I can't wrap my mind around the concept of something having "always existed." I understand that either the elements that comprise the universe have always existed or that God has always existed. Logically my mind tells me that a universe does not have an intelect and thus the universe must have somehow been created. Additionally, I simply can't understand how the unniverse can be created from nothing, nor can I understand how God was created from nothing. So I accept that one or the other has to have existed since time began, thus my leaning towards God. This is probably a failing of my own feeble perceptions, but it is the best that I can do.
Spy, the best way to put the pieces together is to start with Jesus, then backtrack, depending on what conclusion you make regarding him.
The cool thing about God is that by His nature, he is timeless. Thus, that is how He can not have a beginning. The universe, in contrast, by it's nature is within time, thus with a beginning and end, else it exists outsidie of time. Everything within time begins and ends, for such is the nature of time. This is affirmed by the almost unanimously accepted 2nd Law of Thermodynamics as discovered by Einstein -- The universe is in an ever-advancing state of entropy; therefore, in order for entropy to take place, there must be a beginning to decline from. Even though the nature of the universe is chaos, there must have been order in the beginning in order for entropy to advance it to chaos.
If there has always been chaos, we're back to the problem of infinite regression.
The big picture assembles thusly:
1) Every effect has a cause.
2) So as we go back in time, we backtrack to what caused this, to what caused that, to what caused that, and what caused that, etc.
3) Eventually, we conclude there is somehow an original, uncaused cause, or causes regress infiitely into the past.
4) Infinite regression fails to explain the nature of our universe, however,
5) God fits into the picture perfectly, since His nature by definition places Him outside of time, as the Creator of time, and thus uncaused and uncreated. He is the uncaused cause.
6) However, as Tiger promptly pointed out, that does not mean He is the answer -- it means He is a possible answer.
7) Which takes us to Jesus. If his claims are true, then God is that answer. If not, then the answer is either another god or another uncaused cause.
8) Thus, the verdict here rests entirely upon the nature of Jesus.
Havent read all the posts just the last three or four. In any case this reminds me of a conversation I had with a friend of mine. He is a born again christain and we were talking about the bible and especially the book of genesis. My stand was that the bible is mans interpretation of the creation of the world put into a context that we could understand before we advanced in the sciences. His point was that the bible is the word of God and as such stands as it is.
Like tigershark I brought up eveloution and the fact we know now that the world has an age, that we have found the remains of older species in the ground etc. He listened patiently and then asked how old was Adam when God made him? If God made the first man with a given age why not the world. This point was also raised in the only true referance to the universe The hitch hikers guide to the galaxy.
I always though that was a good example of logic against faith.
