It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Is there a God?

page: 3
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 4 2005 @ 10:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Regenmacher
Buy, consume, obey=your already insane, there's no sane model on Earth.


Sanity is seeing reality as it actually is (or as close as possible). How you behave in light of such perception is up to you. When you can no longer distinguish between fantasy and reality, you are clinically insane. This is the effect of religious faith.


Originally posted by Regenmacher
Let's see, sane is: pay taxes, feed body, excrete waste, buy gadgets, abuse chemicals, pratice self gratification, complain and blame...good sane plan ehh?


If this is how you view those who do not share your delusion, I pity you.


Originally posted by Regenmacher
Reward for belief in God, if God actually does exist is infinite...on the other hand your reward is finite and nothing, so you lose.


Your assuming that god wants you to believe in him. For all you know, he wants you to be an atheist, or perhaps he created the universe for the production of styrofoam cups. No knowledge = No knowledge.


Originally posted by Regenmacher
Pascal's Wager...read it


Pascal's wager is one of the stupidist arguments ever made. If I don't believe in your silly afterlife BS, then I don't believe it. There is no wager to be made. I could act as if I believed, which would have made sense in Pascal's day, but I can not force myself to actually believe in magic invisible sky people regardless of what magic invisible afterlife sky consequences are threatened. It's patently absurd. To bring up this age old debunked simple minded argument demonstrates your own lack of due diligence in investigating that which you support for nothing but emotional reasons.


Originally posted by spamandham
No one knows is exactly the point! You throwout statistical probablilities and chopped off your head with that idealism based on lack of knowledge. Your no better than a fundamentalist, same nut, different polarity.


Before you make stupid accusations, you might want to back them up. What claims of mine regarding statistical probabilities and idealism are you referring to?

I do not claim any special knowledge of the big bang, or whether it had a cause, natural or supernatural. You are the one making claims out of thin air on topics you can not possibly have any knowledge about.


Originally posted by spamandham
Faith is for luddites that can't handle the world without back pats. I'll go with the odds backed with scientific proof there is order in the cosmos, while you gambled off your potential for egos sake.


Who's claiming there is no order? Science is founded on the principle of an ordered (i.e. predictable) universe. How does the existence/nonexistence of order prove the existence of a magic daddy in the sky who is so egotistical that he cares that we believe in him?


Originally posted by spamandham
As for your numerous labels of supernatural, caring, and sentients, what hat you pull all that crap out of...I said nothing to that effect.


If god is not supernatural, or if he is not sentient, or if he is not caring, then what difference does it make if I believe in him? Even if he is real, if there are no consequences for failing to believe a bunch of obvious silly mythology, then why should I? After all, I have identified actual costs to such belief, but no actual benefit. The benefits supposedly take place after I die, and I have nothing but the words of superstitious ancient sun stroked mushroom influenced goat herders to base this promise on. No thanks.


Originally posted by spamandham
[url=http://news.yahoo.com/s/space/20050811/sc_space/scientistsbeliefingodvariesstarklybydiscipline]About two-thirds of scientists believe in God,


How many believe in you're god I wonder. No matter. Truth is not ascertained by opinion polls. I imagine 2/3 of scientists would agree with me on that.

(did you notice that those involved in natural sciences, and particularly biologists disbelieve at a much higher rate?)


Originally posted by spamandham
Your in the minority and considered a deviant in principles of psychology too.


I know I'm in the minority. Fortunately, truth is not determined by popularity.

Not that it matters, but deviant in psychology in what way?




posted on Sep, 4 2005 @ 01:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by spamandham

Sanity is seeing reality as it actually is (or as close as possible). How you behave in light of such perception is up to you. When you can no longer distinguish between fantasy and reality, you are clinically insane. This is the effect of religious faith.


There you go pulling terms out of thin air. What part of "Believing in a Creator has nothing to do the human manipulations or perversions of institutionalized religon" do you not understand?

I can distinguish quite well and I use my full potential, you have chosen to cripple yourself and trust your fallible brain as infallible. That self induced crippling is a form of masochism. So tell me why you think your sane to deprive yourself? You won't go nuts either. unless you throw out logic and commonsense.


Originally posted by spamandham
If this is how you view those who do not share your delusion, I pity you.

That's the reality of it, for one to profess to know realism you suddenly jumped ship. That's all there is in your finite dead inside world, get used to it. Denial won't change it either, nor will false pity or mockery.


Originally posted by spamandham
Your assuming that god wants you to believe in him. For all you know, he wants you to be an atheist, or perhaps he created the universe for the production of styrofoam cups. No knowledge = No knowledge.


You assume way to much, who said the Creator wants anything?
More crap out of the hat child talk...geez


Originally posted by spamandham
Pascal's wager is one of the stupidist arguments ever made. If I don't believe in your silly afterlife BS, then I don't believe it. There is no wager to be made. I could act as if I believed, which would have made sense in Pascal's day, but I can not force myself to actually believe in magic invisible sky people regardless of what magic invisible afterlife sky consequences are threatened. It's patently absurd. To bring up this age old debunked simple minded argument demonstrates your own lack of due diligence in investigating that which you support for nothing but emotional reasons.


Pulling crap out of the hat again, who said anything about sky people?

I'll post it, cause you didn't read it. Your ego over runs your logic.

* You may believe in God, and God exists, in which case you go to the next level.
* You may believe in God, and God doesn't exist, in which case you gain nothing.
* You may not believe in God, and God doesn't exist, in which you gain nothing again.
* You may not believe in God, and God may exist, in which case you will be punished.

You just preconditioned yourself to gain nothing or suffer. Hard logic.

You chose to see the world as only ego and it's emotionalism, not me..so why you complaining about the limits of your egoworld?


Originally posted by spamandham
Before you make stupid accusations, you might want to back them up. What claims of mine regarding statistical probabilities and idealism are you referring to?

I do not claim any special knowledge of the big bang, or whether it had a cause, natural or supernatural. You are the one making claims out of thin air on topics you can not possibly have any knowledge about.


Again let's go thru the logical run down.

Fact: Something exists. Even if the world is an illusion, an illusory self, contemplating an illusory universe, is still something that exists.

Fact: Every existing phenomenon is the end effect of a causal chain of possibly infinite length.

Fact: Everything that exists does so because of some cause.

Fact: Every phenomenon is either caused by something external or caused by itself, but never both.

The statistical probability is that something caused the cosmos to exist and that cause is the Creator for lack of a better word. The universe could not be self-caused, since it is caused by the aggregation of its components, and so there must be some object aka Creator.


Originally posted by spamandham
Who's claiming there is no order? Science is founded on the principle of an ordered (i.e. predictable) universe. How does the existence/nonexistence of order prove the existence of a magic daddy in the sky who is so egotistical that he cares that we believe in him?


You have claimed there is no order: To believe in order is to believe something caused order. You think something came from nothing and throw physical laws out the window in the process. Athiests believe in nothing. Order is a theory, so is chaos , your idealism can not have either.

Magic daddy? Where do you get this anthropormorphic bs from?

Who said the Creator cares, if you don't? Law of reciprocation.


Originally posted by spamandham
If god is not supernatural, or if he is not sentient, or if he is not caring, then what difference does it make if I believe in him? Even if he is real, if there are no consequences for failing to believe a bunch of obvious silly mythology, then why should I? After all, I have identified actual costs to such belief, but no actual benefit. The benefits supposedly take place after I die, and I have nothing but the words of superstitious ancient sun stroked mushroom influenced goat herders to base this promise on. No thanks.


No benefits based on never trying the other side of the fence, means your descision process is corrupted. What benefit is their from being abnormal and choosing to be an outcast of society, cause your into pain?

Then you want to draw conclusions based on what you read from old dogmas and campfire tales? Try direct experience without ego driven blinders.

You sure like to throw labels around so you can define the infinite, which is not going to happen with squiggly lines (words) and a finite idealism.

You have no idea if there is consequences, so roll your bones, odds are you crap out.


Originally posted by spamandham
How many believe in you're god I wonder.

Believe in the infinite? Guess that includes everyone by default.


Originally posted by spamandham
(did you notice that those involved in natural sciences, and particularly biologists disbelieve at a much higher rate?)
Doctors have 10 years of schooling, and have a higher percentage than biologist, then we can assume with education comes more belief. Macro view of the article means higher intelligence doesn't gamble and throw away their potential like you do.


Originally posted by spamandham
Your in the minority and considered a deviant in principles of psychology too.

I know I'm in the minority. Fortunately, truth is not determined by popularity.

Not that it matters, but deviant in psychology in what way?


Let's see by word definition since you love those labels for finite world ideals:

Deviant: behavior is different from a customary, traditional, or generally accepted standard.

Masochism: the tendency to invite and enjoy misery of any kind, especially in order to be pitied by others or admired for forbearance. Like your nihilism beliefs.

Truth: considered to be the supreme reality and to have the ultimate meaning and value of existence, but your version of truth is a finite in an infinite reality.

Athiest: denial of the existence of God. There's that denial word again.

Well looks like your insane to me, would stay away from drugs since your predisposed to be an addict based on my experience as narcanon counselor. You have chosen an idealism that won't pull you out of the hole when you fall in.

Takes some science classes and get back to me in 10 years. Quantum mechanics would be a good one for starters and take a few months off in a survival training course.

The world is not black and white and easily defined unless your truelly niave, so good luck on putting that finite view into an infinite reality with that bilateral organic brain.

Btw, I have been clinically dead 4 times, and you really have no idea. You can consider this was your wake up call.

Roll the bones...

[edit on 4-9-2005 by Regenmacher]



posted on Sep, 4 2005 @ 06:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Regenmacher
There you go pulling terms out of thin air. What part of "Believing in a Creator has nothing to do the human manipulations or perversions of institutionalized religon" do you not understand?


What part of "faith is a form of self induced insanity" are you confusing with "institutionalized religion"?


Originally posted by Regenmacher
I can distinguish quite well and I use my full potential, you have chosen to cripple yourself and trust your fallible brain as infallible.


No, I have simply not chosen to cripple myself by believing the nonsense coming from the fallible brains of others.


Originally posted by Regenmacher
So tell me why you think your sane to deprive yourself?


To deprive myself of what? Willfull self delusion? I hardly consider that a form of deprivation.



Originally posted by Regenmacher
You won't go nuts either. unless you throw out logic and commonsense.


Exactly the reason faith is a form of insanity. There is no commonsense or logic in belief in magic invisible sky people.


Originally posted by Regenmacher
That's the reality of it, for one to profess to know realism you suddenly jumped ship. That's all there is in your finite dead inside world, get used to it. Denial won't change it either, nor will false pity or mockery.


Realism doesn't mean that you are nothing but a tax slave and consumer as you previously implied. That's just your infantile perspective.


Originally posted by Regenmacher
You assume way to much, who said the Creator wants anything?
More crap out of the hat child talk...geez


If "the creator" doesn't care whether or not you believe, then why did you present Pascal's wager? If you don't want assumptions to be made, then don't present pointless and unrelated arguments.


Originally posted by Regenmacher
Pulling crap out of the hat again, who said anything about sky people?


You did indirectly. That's the origin of the concept of gods. Your lack of knowledge of the origins of your own beliefs does not surprise me in the least.



Originally posted by Regenmacher
I'll post it, cause you didn't read it. Your ego over runs your logic.

* You may believe in God, and God exists, in which case you go to the next level.
* You may believe in God, and God doesn't exist, in which case you gain nothing.
* You may not believe in God, and God doesn't exist, in which you gain nothing again.
* You may not believe in God, and God may exist, in which case you will be punished.

You just preconditioned yourself to gain nothing or suffer. Hard logic.


Your assumptions run as deep as your knowledge is shallow. If you actually read my last post, it would be clear to you that I'm fully cognizant of this line of non-reasoning. Pascal's wager is predicated on two lies. The first is that there is no cost for belief. The second is that lack of belief in the existence of god could even possibly result in punishment. The first lie is easy to directly expose. The second requires analyzing the purported nature of said god and finding it to be inconsistent.

Belief in the existence of god is not what supposedly saves you. This is a third lie which is implicit in his "wager".


Originally posted by Regenmacher

Originally posted by spamandham
Before you make stupid accusations, you might want to back them up. What claims of mine regarding statistical probabilities and idealism are you referring to?


Again let's go thru the logical run down.


Note that nowhere in the following rambling chain of incoherence do you actually present the post(s) you accuse me of, but let's continue anyway.


Originally posted by Regenmacher
Fact: Something exists. Even if the world is an illusion, an illusory self, contemplating an illusory universe, is still something that exists.


Ok.


Originally posted by Regenmacher
Fact: Every existing phenomenon is the end effect of a causal chain of possibly infinite length.


Says who? You have no basis for making such claims at the quantum level. "Causaility" is a concept derived from everyday life, of which the big bang is not.


Originally posted by Regenmacher
Fact: Everything that exists does so because of some cause.


Not according to conservation of energy. Everything that exists has always existed in some form since the beginning of time. Causes result in effects, not existence.


Originally posted by Regenmacher
Fact: Every phenomenon is either caused by something external or caused by itself, but never both.


If something can be caused by something external or something internal, then the distinction between what is internal or external is arbitrary. That being the case, there is no reason at all a phenomenon can not be jointly caused by internal and external events.


Originally posted by Regenmacher
The statistical probability is that something caused the cosmos to exist


Since you claim existence is a probabilistic event, it is you, not I who "throwout statistical probabilities". All you have proven is that you yourself are guilty of that which you tried to accuse me of.

...full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.



posted on Sep, 6 2005 @ 11:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by spamandham

Originally posted by TruthMagnet
But it amazes me how so many scientists will not say the more obvious truth that - if this is true - and if particles in the universe can interact over vast disconnected distances (which we have proved entangled photons/particles can and do)- then the Universe would inevitably by Evolutionary Theory become self aware itself!


Non sequitur.


Originally posted by TruthMagnet
which details how extremely complex phenomena can be created by creating a virtual (or in this case real) universe in which certain established rules (i.e. mathmatical constants) are put into place.


Which of course disproves the creationist nonsense that complexity can not arise without an "intelligent designer".



Now spamandham,

as to the first point above it is hardly Non sequitur because if you believe in Evolutionary Theory, than you have to agree that the theory predicts the likeyhood of increased complexity over time - as long as information can be transmitted throughout the "organism" and its lineage.

And, as the assumed RNA world led to a DNA world, then to a single cellular world, and finally to a multicellular world - so would particles which can hold and transfer information lead to more and more complex organizations, first randomly, and then purposefully as those organizations which self organized and repeated themselves became dominant (and the main organizing force) throughout the universe.

These organized particles would form the first "lifeform", a lifeform of a very alien nature to our experience here on Earth.

Over a nearly infinite period of time - which can easily be infered due to the inherent nature of the universe (and the fact that the universe exists) - the organism would become self aware as iterations of its "body" became more and more complex.

as to the second point, I think you misunderstand the mathematics of what Wolfram has described and shown in computer simulated models.

Our Universe actually supports the idea of Intelligent Design because the matematical constants and initial variables required to create our universe (starting with the big bang) are uniquely and quite inexplicably fine tailored to allow for life to form on this planet and in almost all solar systems in our universe.

This is well known in the scientific community and cannot be easily explained away without an extremely complex hypothesis involving an infinite gradient of parallel universes strung together - of which there is currently no evidence - and which actually goes against the highly regarded principle of Ocam's Razor.

But it is clear that although you have a good grasp of the analytical that you are completely bias against exploring the full realm of evidence of God and the spiritual realm, likely due to negative experiences you have had in modern society.

I hope, one day, you will allow yourself to experience some things without playing the role of critical observer but as an unbiased participant free to explore in areas you had previously thought not possible.



posted on Sep, 6 2005 @ 02:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by TruthMagnet
as to the first point above it is hardly Non sequitur because if you believe in Evolutionary Theory, than you have to agree that the theory predicts the likeyhood of increased complexity over time - as long as information can be transmitted throughout the "organism" and its lineage.

And, as the assumed RNA world led to a DNA world, then to a single cellular world, and finally to a multicellular world - so would particles which can hold and transfer information lead to more and more complex organizations, first randomly, and then purposefully as those organizations which self organized and repeated themselves became dominant (and the main organizing force) throughout the universe.

These organized particles would form the first "lifeform", a lifeform of a very alien nature to our experience here on Earth.


From an evolutionary perspective, self awareness arose because self aware critters had a reproductive/survival advantage over less/non-self aware critters. From the perspective of the universe as a whole, complexity (localized information) is not increasing. Instead, complexity is becoming more uniformly distributed (entropy). Further, not all self reinforcing systems (of which numerous natural systems exist) result in self awareness. Further still, it is not clear that the universe as a whole is a self reinforcing system (although it might be).

Unless you identify the mechnism that would push the universe toward self awareness, it's a disingenuous argument to claim that the universe should be self ware if evolution is true.

Even if your argument held up, how could we know if the universe was self aware or not (assuming you are not merely referring to the self aware life that is part of the universe)?


Originally posted by TruthMagnet
Over a nearly infinite period of time - which can easily be infered due to the inherent nature of the universe (and the fact that the universe exists) - the organism would become self aware as iterations of its "body" became more and more complex.


There's more to self awareness than just increasing complexity. If it is your contention that increasing complexity always results in self awareness, it's up to you to prove that.


Originally posted by TruthMagnet
Our Universe actually supports the idea of Intelligent Design because the matematical constants and initial variables required to create our universe (starting with the big bang) are uniquely and quite inexplicably fine tailored to allow for life to form on this planet and in almost all solar systems in our universe.


Ah yes, the anthropic principle. We are here because our universe supports our existence. If it didn't, we wouldn't be here to marvel at how consistent it is with our existence.

It is only your assumption that you are important to the universe that leads to the intelligent design conclusion. If you wish to use this argument, it is up to you to prove that the universe took on these properties so that we would one day exist, rather than the other way around (we exist because the universe has these properties).


Originally posted by TruthMagnet
This is well known in the scientific community and cannot be easily explained away without an extremely complex hypothesis involving an infinite gradient of parallel universes strung together - of which there is currently no evidence - and which actually goes against the highly regarded principle of Ocam's Razor.


Occam's razor demands that you not increase beyond what is necessary the number of entities necessary to provide an explanation. Any minimally complex natural explanation satisfies Occam's razor better than a supernatural explanation, as a supernatural explanation unnecessarily expands the trade space to include not only nature, but also super-nature.

Keep in mind that what theoretical physicists are doing at present is looking for an explanation. Don't confuse that with a claim of having an explanation. At present, "I don't know" is the only honest answer anyone can give.


Originally posted by TruthMagnet
But it is clear that although you have a good grasp of the analytical that you are completely bias against exploring the full realm of evidence of God and the spiritual realm,


No, I'm biased against unsubstantiated claims and logical fallacies.


Originally posted by TruthMagnet
I hope, one day, you will allow yourself to experience some things without playing the role of critical observer but as an unbiased participant free to explore in areas you had previously thought not possible.


Unbiased participants are critical observers. If you are not a critical observer, you are not unbiased.

What makes you think I have not already been down the road you are on?



posted on Sep, 6 2005 @ 04:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by spamandham


Originally posted by TruthMagnet
But it is clear that although you have a good grasp of the analytical that you are completely bias against exploring the full realm of evidence of God and the spiritual realm,


No, I'm biased against unsubstantiated claims and logical fallacies.



Ahh, but I disagree, you are quite bias.

I have not claimed to prove the existance of God in this thread, but to provide the logical and plausible method for God's existance using the only alternative to the Creation Hypothesis - Evolutionary Theory.

Therefore you reveal your bias in being an athiest (in your expressed hostility towards religion) rather than an agnostic.

The fact is I have hypothesised here that God used the "Wolfram" method to create a tailored made universe that would result in the spontaneous evolution of self awareness.

Thus resulting in the percieved Anthropic principle which cannot be used to prove God's existance as Humans can not look at the complexity of nature and re-trace the finite starting mathematical constants and variables used in its initial creation.

This is in fact the height of elegance and simplicity - a fact that even Einstein acknowledged in his studies of the Universe.

As for your assertion that only reactive response to natural conditions leads to increased complexity, it is now well understood that Darwin's gradualism has been replaced with the more accurate punctuated equilibrium, due to the inevitable homogeneous influences caused in populations by neutral evolution.

That is to say that genetic bottleneck accidents, that are reinforced due to localized and isolated conditions, have led to the complexity of forms found on Earth.

And to suggest that such extreme localized and isolated conditions do not exist in the Universe is disingenuous at best.

Therfore your argument that there is no known mechnism that would push the universe toward self awareness is fallactious as the normal evolutionary pressures that exist throughout the universe would be sufficient.

And once sentience was obtained accidentally by the "body" of the universe, it would then start to tailor it's environment to itself as we see all "intelligent" life forms attempt to do here on Earth.

So again - to summarize - I have presented a logical, possible, hypothesis for the existance of God and "his" subsequent creation of our current universe - using your own prefered theory of origin Evolutionary Theory.

And by presenting this hypothesis I have shown how that if God is self aware, and in fact the whole Universe is "his" body, that it would be impossible for "him" to have not influenced our creation.

You can continue to attack those who do believe in God with venom as it does not fit your current paradigm or universe view, but you can no longer claim that science and the existance of God are mutally exclusive - although you will likely still choose to have faith that God is a collective figmanent of the uneducated masses imagination.

Good luck to you with that.



posted on Sep, 6 2005 @ 06:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by TruthMagnet
Ahh, but I disagree, you are quite bias.

I have not claimed to prove the existance of God in this thread, but to provide the logical and plausible method for God's existance using the only alternative to the Creation Hypothesis - Evolutionary Theory.


- You have not shown that the universe is a self reinforcing system like life is

- You have not shown that the universe is in a state of increasing complexity resulting from such positive feedback

- You have not shown that even if it were, that increasing complexity necessitates sentience

- You have not shown that the universe is or isn't sentient

- Given the two options, "Life exists because the universe is capable of sustaining life" vs. "The universe is capable of sustaining life because there is a positive force that wants life", you have not shown why the second is applicable rather than the first

- You have not explained why a supernatural explanation is more expedient than a natural explanation

All you have done is assume your position and then used selective evidence to try to support it. You are the one who is biased. If you present an actual case and not just a collection of assumptions tied together by logical fallacies, you'll find I'm all ears.


Originally posted by TruthMagnet
Therefore you reveal your bias in being an athiest (in your expressed hostility towards religion) rather than an agnostic.


You could have simply asked me that rather than depending on psychological revelation. Yes, I am an atheist. Yes, I am hostile toward faith based religions. And yes, these positions are justifiable. I am not an atheist for some stupid reason like "I love sin", or "I hate god", or "The world is bad" or other apologetic claptrap, I'm an atheist because I've concluded god doesn't exist. I can not prove god doesn't exist, but I can make a judgement on the fact based on circumstantial evidence.

I'm hostile toward faith as well because it is not a valid way of obtaining knowledge and it leads to war, suffering, and the enslavement of minds.


Originally posted by TruthMagnet
The fact is I have hypothesised here that God used the "Wolfram" method to create a tailored made universe that would result in the spontaneous evolution of self awareness.


You have hypothesized it, but you have not demonstrated it, nor have you provided any explanation of why the converse can not be true - that we exist because the universe is as it is.


Originally posted by TruthMagnet
That is to say that genetic bottleneck accidents, that are reinforced due to localized and isolated conditions, have led to the complexity of forms found on Earth.

And to suggest that such extreme localized and isolated conditions do not exist in the Universe is disingenuous at best.


How evolution, in any flavor, proves the universe aught to be intelligent is a leap of nonsense. Evolutionary theory is quite a bit more detailed than simply 'complexity leads to sentience'. In fact that isn't part of evolutionary theory at all, yet you start with that assumption and conclude that if such an assumption is true that the universe would also be sentient.

You are simply creating a strawman, and not a very clever one either.

Please explain how sentience can arrise in the universe as a whole. This can't simply be an assumption or an analogy, explain the mechanism.


Originally posted by TruthMagnet
Therfore your argument that there is no known mechnism that would push the universe toward self awareness is fallactious as the normal evolutionary pressures that exist throughout the universe would be sufficient.


I honestly don't even know what you are trying to claim now. It seemed like you were saying the universe as a whole would become sentient, but now it seems like your saying that the universe can be considered sentient if sentience exists within the universe. What eveolutionary pressures are you referring to?


Originally posted by TruthMagnet
And once sentience was obtained accidentally by the "body" of the universe, it would then start to tailor it's environment to itself as we see all "intelligent" life forms attempt to do here on Earth.


Even if the universe were in fact sentient, it must also have the power to change itself. The argument you are using is that the universe existed in some sense in a nonsentient form and then developed sentience. But, a development of sentience does not imply the power to modify the nature of your existence. Add this as another assumption to the list:

- sentience of the universe implies that the universe has the power to change its own nature


Originally posted by TruthMagnet
So again - to summarize - I have presented a logical, possible, hypothesis for the existance of God and "his" subsequent creation of our current universe - using your own prefered theory of origin Evolutionary Theory.


Even if you had presented an actual argument rather than simply a list of unsubstantiated assumptions, proving that it is possible for god to exist would not be enough to prove that such a being actually exists.

From my perspective, the default position for all claims is falseness. There must be a reason to accept a claim before I will accept it. I suspect you take this same tact in almost all other aspects of your life except this one.

And by presenting this hypothesis I have shown how that if God is self aware, and in fact the whole Universe is "his" body, that it would be impossible for "him" to have not influenced our creation.


Originally posted by TruthMagnet
You can continue to attack those who do believe in God with venom


Funny, I don't recall attacking anyone. I do however recall attacking their positions. I use venom only to the extent it is dealt to me.


Originally posted by TruthMagnet
as it does not fit your current paradigm or universe view, but you can no longer claim that science and the existance of God are mutally exclusive - although you will likely still choose to have faith that God is a collective figmanent of the uneducated masses imagination.


I never claimed that science disproves the existence of gods, I have merely claimed it does not provide any evidence of gods. The concept of god typically disproves itself by inconsistency of definition.

If I have faith that god is a mass delusion, why is my faith less valid than your faith that he is not? Perhaps we should have a war to determine who's faith is correct.



posted on Sep, 7 2005 @ 03:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by spamandham

I never claimed that science disproves the existence of gods, I have merely claimed it does not provide any evidence of gods. The concept of god typically disproves itself by inconsistency of definition.

If I have faith that god is a mass delusion, why is my faith less valid than your faith that he is not? Perhaps we should have a war to determine who's faith is correct.


And this is why I joined in on this thread.

I get so very tired of advocates of Evolutionary Theory writing on the internet that there is no God and that anyone who presents a logical case for God is making Super Natural assumptions which contradict what we know about the Universe from science.

What it really comes down to is that advocates of Evolutionary Theory have to make some serious leap-of-faith assumptions for the same reason Creationists do - and for the same rationalization - that we do in fact exist.

But you can't claim there is evidence or explanation for how lipids could have formed cells in evironments extremely hostile to cells, although friendly to nucleotide formation - or how punctuated equilibrium could have happend so frequently while geologic records show far slower environmental change - or why the massive environmental stresses caused by modern Humans has not led to massive acceleration of species diversity.

Or - like you say - how sentience has appeared so frequently in animals over an extremely short time period since multicellular animals appeared.

These are substantial problems with Evolutionary Theory that will likely be resolved when the evidence presents itself - but which requires extremely unlikely (or what you would call Supernatural) explanations until the truth is elucidated to us.

And in that light my claim that sentience IS an emergent result of Evolution over a sufficient time period, and that sentience goes hand in hand with the ability to manipulate matter - two things seen over and over in our small planetary ecosytem - make my scientifically based "assumptions" no larger a leap of faifth than yours.

To me your bias comes from the fact that you see religion as the cause for many of society's ill's - when I see it as rather the justification or rationalization given by Humans for the simple but brutal competition for resources which is engaged in by all species on this planet.

And as for should we go to war - as a Christian I would say it's against my religion to do so - but whenever those who are scientifically educated try to dismiss the beliefs of others using only a partial truth and questionable logic - then I will always be ready to wage a war of words so that people shall know the whole truth so that it may set them truly free.



posted on Sep, 7 2005 @ 09:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by TruthMagnet
I get so very tired of advocates of Evolutionary Theory writing on the internet that there is no God and that anyone who presents a logical case for God is making Super Natural assumptions which contradict what we know about the Universe from science.


My take is different. I don't say that science disproves god(s), I say that most definitions of god(s) are inconsistent and thus disprove themselves.

Further, I see no philosophical necessity for god(s), nor any credible evidence of god(s). By the rules of evidence - all positive claims are false by default - the lack of any credible evidence for the existence of god(s) results in the conclusion that (t)he(y) do(es)n't exist. This is not proof, it is merely a conclusion based on consistent treatment of evidence.


Originally posted by TruthMagnet
But you can't claim there is evidence or explanation for how lipids could have formed cells in evironments extremely hostile to cells, although friendly to nucleotide formation - or how punctuated equilibrium could have happend so frequently while geologic records show far slower environmental change - or why the massive environmental stresses caused by modern Humans has not led to massive acceleration of species diversity.


Certainly there are plausible explanations for these. Whether or not they represent reality can never be known unless we figure out how to go back in time. In other words, we can only guess.

But the ability to present a possible natural explanation is all that is required to discount the supernatural as necessary. Does that at least make sense?


Originally posted by TruthMagnet
Or - like you say - how sentience has appeared so frequently in animals over an extremely short time period since multicellular animals appeared.


I don't recall saying that it is frequent. I have no idea how many other animals have sentience.


Originally posted by TruthMagnet
These are substantial problems with Evolutionary Theory that will likely be resolved when the evidence presents itself - but which requires extremely unlikely (or what you would call Supernatural) explanations until the truth is elucidated to us.


Extremely unlikely is not the same as supernatural. We could imagine that by complete random chance, all life on earth just happened to form 3.5 billion years ago (or whatever number you prefer) from base elements.

What are the odds of this? They are indescribably small, but not 0. The non-0 is just as unimaginably important as it is small. Why? Because by your own words, the universe has had infinite time/trials for this.

Given an infinite number of trials, anything with finite probability, regardless of how fantasically, rediculously, insanely small it may be (as long as it is not identically 0), will happen. Not only that, but it will happen infinite times.

Thus, there is a possible explanation for life that does not depend on evolution or god - the universe is infinite in some sense and all life spontaneously assembled. This mere logical possibility eliminates god as being necessary.

If you wish to prove god, it is not sufficient to discount evolution. q.e.d.



posted on Sep, 8 2005 @ 04:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by spamandham

Given an infinite number of trials, anything with finite probability, regardless of how fantasically, rediculously, insanely small it may be (as long as it is not identically 0), will happen. Not only that, but it will happen infinite times.


I think that statement says it all !

Will happen, indeed. You have talked yourself into a corner on that one.
You've just invalidated all your suppositions...classic, well so much for this aporia.

By attempting to rigidly classify ethereal concepts like faith, we end up debating semantics to the point where we entirely miss the obvious-that is, that we are all trying to decipher life's big mysteries, and we're each following our own paths of enlightenment.



[edit on 8-9-2005 by Regenmacher]



posted on Sep, 8 2005 @ 08:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Regenmacher
I think that statement says it all !

Will happen, indeed. You have talked yourself into a corner on that one.


Hardly. The "will happen" is contingent upon infinite trials and finite probability. If you can show both of these to be true, you have a case.




top topics



 
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join