The_Jazz

ays - sorry if you felt picked on, but I certainly wasn't trying to bash you. Trust me, you would have known if I were. I didn't mean to offend you, but if you're going to try to use science to prove something, you need to be prepared to be challenged on your assumptions. We're not going to change our minds because you said so. If I think you're wrong, I'm going to say your wrong, and there's absolutely nothing with that. It's one of the very basic principles of this site, and as long as I do it in a respectful way (which I think I did), it's perfectly fine. We don't allow name-calling, and again, you'll note that I did nothing of the sort.

I didn't call you a fool - you'll notice that the word doesn't appear once in my post. I didn't call you anything actually. I just told you that the "facts" you stated were wrong. And I stand by them, especially in the light that your "proof" is homeopathic medicine, not peer-reviewed science. Yes, the skin excretes some wastes, but that doesn't make those wastes "toxins".

__________________
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin
"There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush
"We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

ays

I should have been a bit more clear on my name-calling post, I was referring to willravel's post about me fooling myself and fooling others.

And I understand I might not present things in a structured format, but I just speak what's on my mind.




Did you not pay attention? I said just because the hole is over Antartica, that doesn't mean that the rest of the ozone is not affected. It's possible that the ozone over Miama, although not a hole, could be less effective at blocking UVA than say 200 years ago.

Doesn't this go back to the very first post that I made on this thread? Here let me repost it for you:


Ok, I'm not entirely sure where you going, but I'll try to respond. The reason I said things were purely speculative is because humanly observation is only that, observation. It's when people say science is exact, and FACT, that it starts to get distorted like anything else. This is that, so that must be this. It looks good, and seems logical, but observation is only surface level.

and I have no idea where or who said the earth was 4000 years old. Time is man made. The only time is right now. It's no more rediculous than some scientist throwing some chemicals on some rocks and saying the world is 8 billion years old.

According to science the universe is constantly expanding and always changing. Wouldn't it make sense then, that carbon was probably different 5,000 years ago?

For one thing, it's quite possible that global warming can be linked to skin cancer so it's not ludicris to talk about it. If everytime we had a discussion we kept every topic seperate then we wouldn't accomplish much would we? And I didn't say the toxins is the only reason we get skin cancer. I believe EVERYTHING is relative, and all in the same. Is it not science that what you eat affects your body and your skin? Is it not science that ozone layer is depleting? Than put the two together! I'm sure they have something to do with it! I'm not saying it's the answer, but you can't just discredit the possibility.

Oh believe me, I am a seeker of truth above all else my friend. Even when I was a hopeless, rebellious, lost and confused atheist at the age of 12, I was still a seeker of the Truth. You see, there can only be ONE truth. It's not just a set of books that I use as reference. I look at all life. Yes, the Holy Bible is a HUUUUUUUUGE priceless resource that I refer to often, but I also practice buddhist principals, tai chi, yoga, and learn from scientific research as well.

What it comes down to, is if life was created, then everything would have infinite meaning. Look deep for the meaning! The more I search for the meaning of things, and try to find the truth, the more and more God becomes visible to me.

And you're absolutely right! It is your own journey. Everybody is on their own journey. God to me can mean something completely different to you. But I feel like it would be foolish to assume the Bible is a certain way, and not try to find some meaning in it. You have 66 different books, written by 40+ authors over a 1400+ year span. That's an incredible resource, and we're not talking just any books or authors. You have King Solomon who is the wealthiest and wisest king of all time! This guy had 300 wives and 600 concubines and all the wealth and power you could ever dream of! His story is available to us. You also have moses, and Noah, the 12 disciples who walked with the incarnation, God in the flesh! Even if the big bang theory were true, and God didn't exist, and this was all random, the FACT that the Bible exists would be an absolute MIRACLE - 1 in a 10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 chance of it all coming together.

A seeker of Truth will seek everywhere, and dig deep no matter what it is, because Truth can be found anywhere.

__________________
ReadEZArchive.com - Seach and Submit FREE Articles! Webmasters join our Link Exchange.

Willravel

Do you have any evidence whatsoever to support this? Do you have any evidence that OZONE depletion is the one and only cause of skin cancer? Do you have any evidence to contradict the evidence that people have been getting skin cancer for thousands of years? Do you even read the parts of my posts about UVB rays? UVB rays are not blocked at all by the OZONE layer, but according to the experts, they also cause cancer. Nothing in the atmosphere blocks UVB rays, they have always gotten right through, for as much as millions of years.
I see. So if you piss of god, expect torture and murder. But other than that, god is all about feeling good. Kinda like, um, Bush?

Oh my god. Do you understand the process of carbon dating (which puts the earth closer to 4 billion years)? Google it, please. I beg you.

As I said, suspending the laws of science to explain god is symptomatic of the effect that groupthink can have on people. It's dangerous, you see, because if one is able to dismiss what their eyes see and their ears hear for god, what else are they capable of? When you shut off the part of your brain that asks why, and is capable of learning, you condemn yourself to simplicity.

Hain

We hit this topic starting here. We all ready discussed how observations, while speculation, are not the same as faith in something that is unproven, and may very well be unprovable. I should have been more clear when making this reference.


Again it comes back to observations we make and applying them to the big picture.

I KNOW YOU ARE NOT SAYING THIS BUT I STATE IT TO PROVE A POINT. Which has fewer unproven observations? (A)The universe was came to be roughly (what is the current estimate after applying inflation?) 12-billion-years ago and the Earth formed roughly 4.5-billion-years ago. Using all observations we make on the universe and the rate of decay of certain elements we can show that these objects are roughly this old. (B) God made the universe and everything "How long ago does the Bible say?" and that all this evidence in fossil records are tricks of the Devil (I have met Baptists that argued me with this, and I was honestly terrified).

Yes interpretation of the Bible... were they actual days or eras, because how is a timeless being supposed to understand time like us?


If by different you mean it was a different unstable isotope that somehow decayed to C¹², then yes. But no, the universe would not allow for the physics that exist now to be different at any other point in time when matter has existed. Even the minutest change in the speed of light (what would that do?) would cause electrons to either crash into the nucleus of the atom or hurl themselves away from the nucleus - either a universe of neutrons or no molecules in the universe. Basis.


You are right, it is not ludicrous to discuss this topic, just not here. I personally think we should do all we can to prevent harm to the environment. Unfortunately /grits teeth/ there is not enough evidence for you to make claims that it is man's fault that the environment looks like hell... yeah right...



I acknowledge the evidence that "supports" the bible, keep reading after that post I linked. Like all things, I have seen corruption of messages and people misunderstanding the truth, I apply that exact same skepticism when it comes to books that were written so long ago that anything could have been changed in them to suit whatever purpose others intended.

Oh something becomes visible to me... but it isn't a loving and caring God. The more I look out into the universe and marvel at the beauty coupled with the ferocity... It looks more like a kid with magnifying glass and an ant farm.

You sound exactly like the kindly chap selling bibles to me buts likes a good philosophical discussion over a cup of tea. The more and more I search, the more and more I interpret what I find and what I feel... You and I obviously find different meanings. And you can call me wrong and I won't care, nor will I change my understanding - UNTIL I find the proof that changes me.

__________________

////\\// IRONSKY.NET \\//\\\\

ays

I really appreciate everyone's comments, but it always seems to come down to a clash of viewpoints.

There's really only 2 possibilities. Either the universe came from nothing, or it came from something. People tried to believe that the universe had always existed, but semi-recent scientific studies that show the universe is expanding rendering that theory false.

So if you believe the universe came from nothing, and I base my beliefs on creation then sooner or later it just won't match up right.

I just have one question. Where does Love come from?

__________________
ReadEZArchive.com - Seach and Submit FREE Articles! Webmasters join our Link Exchange.

Hain

The universe doesn't have to have been created for it to have come into existence. We don't know what is out there. We only call it God because anything we make was created by a person. Also, doesn't mean God loves.

As far as I am concerned, love is a human construction, a survival system that binds a group of people together. In my views, willing connection is akin to love... but it doesn't equate to it. My only real measure of good and bad, positive and negative, love and hate, is making willing relationships/connections with others. But that is still off topic...

__________________

////\\// IRONSKY.NET \\//\\\\

ays

That's a pretty good explanation. The only problem I have with it is love for survival is still selfish. True love is self-less.

dang, I know I've gone wayyy off topic, but eh..

See, if the universe was the result of an explosion, then wouldn't things reflect that? And how on earth did that very hot condensed ball of universal matter get there? That's a pretty huge asset that somebody had to know about. Very hot balls of condensed universal matter don't just appear outta nowhere, and just explode and create all that exists.

It just seems to me that we are all that's going on right now. Don't you think it's just odd that humanity is stuck on a floating sphere in a vast universe? Whether or not there is or isn't a God, I think it's just AMAZING that we are here, and have to figure out what the heck is going on!? That is just mind-boggling.

You know, I'm not even discrediting the big bang theory or evolution. It's very possible that God placed that hot ball there, and exploded it. It's also possible that each day the bible talks about God creating the universe was a billion human years. And I wouldn't doubt it if Adam came from from two monkeys. If Jesus can come from a virgin through the power of the holy spirit, then Adam can come from a monkey.

Things just reflect creation to me, not a random explosion.

__________________
ReadEZArchive.com - Seach and Submit FREE Articles! Webmasters join our Link Exchange.

Willravel

I don't know why it has to be "either you believe in god or you believe in science". That mindset makes religion dangerous. It's okay to interpret genesis as a parable that vaguely explains the big bang and development of life on earth. "Let there be light" = big bang. "Let there be sky" can mean the creation of the universe. "Let there be dry land" can be the gathering of stellar dust into planets and stars. "Let the water be gathered into once place" can mean the solidifying of the crust and the settling of the tectonic plates, separating the land from the water. "Let there be grass and plants" can be the development of microorganisms. "Let there be lights in the sky" can mean the clearing of the atmosphere of all the crap that the previous volcanoes and meteor strikes created. "Let the water team with living creatures" the microorganisms become more complex, evolving into fish. Then land animals. Then man. It all matches up with the real story.

Not only that, but according to Genesis, when god cast Adam and Eve from Eden, a part of their punishment was actually "life is gonna be tough". (Gen. 3:14-24). I don't know where you got the idea that the earth is supposed to be perfectly harmonious and perfect for humans, but it's not the bible.

Just because I'm an atheist doesn't mean I don't know religion.
Love is an emotional response the stems from a combination of biochemicals and thought processes brought about by the proper stimulation.

Hain

Through other unverified theories in science, it had to happen.

Plus, I would find it more beautiful if the universe happened without divine intervention. Inanimate mass from some astronomical explosion combined together to make the first galaxies and suns, then the planets and eventually resulted in us. And here we are, sitting at our computers pondering, "Who are we? Where'd we come? Where are we going? What do we wear there?"

__________________

////\\// IRONSKY.NET \\//\\\\

ays

The reason life is tough was because Adam and Eve's disobedience fractured the perfect harmony with God. God's infinite love is what fullfills us. They turned from Him, and tried to find fullfillment in creation ( the forbidden fruit). Cursed is the ground because of him.

ohhhh, now I get it.. :/

__________________
ReadEZArchive.com - Seach and Submit FREE Articles! Webmasters join our Link Exchange.

Willravel

So what you were saying before about pollution causing skin cancer actually meant was that god's wrath causes skin cancer? That's not actually what you wrote.

ays

To an extent yes, it is God's wrath.

But I don't think God is up in heaven giving people skin cancer who disobey Him. It's all a part of the Fall.

For instance, if I live my life with no concern for my health do you think it will affect my kids at all? It most certainly will.

If you're driving down the road and jump out of your car, will you get hurt because God wants to unleash His wrath upon you? I don't think so. God created things a certain way, and we choose to refuse His love. Just like Adam and Eve choose to refuse His love.

__________________
ReadEZArchive.com - Seach and Submit FREE Articles! Webmasters join our Link Exchange.

filtherton

Not to quibble but,

All science, even speculative observations, are based on faith in unproven and unprovable. Yet we can still build airplanes.

Not that i think that you're necessarily wrong, but i don't see how you can claim from a scientific standpoint that the universe would not allow for matter to exist under a different set of laws of physics without presuming a certain understanding of the underlying rules (or lack thereof) governing the laws of physics that you can't possibly have.

Ustwo

The universe could have, just not this universe.

Some who wish to maintain a very weak theist link while not rejecting any of the science will claim that it was gods influence that set up these laws, which are just right for allowing life to exist at all.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

Willravel

Is it a result of the fall or a result of pollution? Those both hypothetically happened at different times, obviously. I would assume the fall happened at lease thousands of years before the industrial revolutions. Initially, you blamed pollution specifically, remember.

Now, if you're saying that the fall caused UVA and UVB rays to be dangerous, I'd be willing to let that go. One cannot disprove the supernatural scientifically, of course (which is a big part of this thread). If, however, you're still claiming that pollution has something to do with it, I'll still have to say you need to do more reading on the subject because all the evidence contradicts your theory.

filtherton

I know that that's along the lines of what Augi was claiming. I just want to know why. I'm not really at the bleeding edge of the study of the physical sciences so i might be speaking from a position of ignorance here, but from what i gather it seems like a little bit of a stretch to claim that we have enough knowledge of the underlying workings of the universe that we can accurately speculate as to what would happen if the laws on which our understanding is based were completely different in an unspecified way.

It would be like attempting to predict the ramifications of noneuclidean geometry using only the axioms and notation of euclidean geometry, which doesn't make sense to do, since their axioms are contradictory.

I'm not saying that it isn't a valid perspective, just that it is fallacious to claim that it is a scientific one.

I won't disagree with this. It seems like a need to justify scientifically a belief in a higher power is more a sign of insecurity in one's faith.

Hain

When was the last time anyone directly observed God? Yet we still make bibles.

Yeah I walked into that one... I do not have an intimate or divine understanding of the blueprints of this universe, but I do understand the basics. The models we know, are based on constants. Those constants are perfect as they are. If they changed matter as we know it would not be allowed to exist.

All sorts of a shit storm could happen: mass and energy stop warping space-time properly, electron orbitals change either ruining the delicate equilibrium they have to make molecules or crash and make neutrons, nuclear weak force changes and suddenly the sun starts burning too fast and burns us or too slow and collapses. It is a wonderful foundation the universe built on. I am rather glad I exist in this set of rules.

UPDATE:
The reason I made such a claim is that many of the constants from one model appear in other models. There is a wonderful interconnectivity with the theories of science, we just don't have the "Big Bean" Unifying Theory to connect them together. Despite these constants have places in each others' theories, the alteration of any one of them would still be disastrous to fundamental workings of the universe.

__________________

////\\// IRONSKY.NET \\//\\\\

ays

i have no idea what's going on anymore.

__________________
ReadEZArchive.com - Seach and Submit FREE Articles! Webmasters join our Link Exchange.

filtherton

Well, i would guess that there have been just as many verifiable occurences of direct god observation as there have been verifiable occurences of direct electron observation. That being said, i don't have a problem with the gist of what you're saying, it's just that how you are justifying it isn't internally consistent, and seems to contradict your position concerning the efficacy and implications of science. This is a microcosm of the problems that i generally find with people who attempt to use science to argue against theism; i don't find fault with their perspective, just that their justification is flawed and inconsistent.

If you want to come at the issue of theology from the perspective that one should avoid believing in things for which there is no objective, verifiable evidence, then you are essentially arguing for skepticism to such an extreme degree that belief in anything would be impossible.

All you can really claim is that certain standards of evidence are superior to others based on some arbitrary, perhaps philosophical notions about what should be considered evidence and what should not. Even then, these standards must necessarily based on circular logic- you essentially justify the accuracy of your observations by assuming the accuracy of your ability to observe.

You can only create some sort of evidenciary threshold and say that everything on one side is questionable and everything on the other side isn't. This is implicit in the scientific process, and is the reason why arguments against theism can't be based on some notion of objective standards and be logically consistent. This inconsistency is largely superficial, since science generally does a pretty good job of creating models that accurately model reality. Superficiality aside, if one is to argue from a perspective of logical and evidenciary supremacy, one should be able to do so without contradicting one's self.

Well, models are models. They aren't reality, they just predict it well under a given set of assumptions. You can model fluid mechanics using completely different models and come to the same conclusions. They both provide accurate data, which one is reality? If you guessed "Nobody fucking knows." you are correct, because nobody fucking knows.

If you were to attempt to apply either of these models to completely different types of matter, say bose-einstein condensates, and expect any sort of accuracy in your predictions you would probably be sorely dissapointed. This is because models are built based on assumptions, and they are only good for what they're good for. Pretty much every model i've come across is based on the assumption that the laws that govern our universe are valid and active, and because of this it seems a little suspect to think that any of these models could be used to predict the conditions of a universe with different governing laws. You might as well just claim that there existed some sort of deity.

Hain

We have indirect evidence of electrons- without human interaction. Watch a bolt of lightning. Look at the work of Millikan or Cherenkov. God has a bunch of books he entitled man to write. There is no chance the messages were manipulated, regardless the length of time the works of the Bible span. I do not need a tantamount of evidence, just something that I can see.

If you see a car driving towards you, do you question your accuracy to observe it? After you jump out of the way, you just can't be sure your observation was right that the car was coming right at yeah... We make observations and we can recreate similar observations given similar conditions. That is circular?

Why mention that fluid dynamics can't be applied to Bose-Einstein condensates? You are superfreezing gases to the point where particles no longer exhibit individuality anymore. What about having more than one model makes it all wrong or that nobody knows a damned thing? Do you trust your doctor when he prescribes you medicine? God forbid you actually need surgery! People rooting around in you and they don't have a fucking clue how the nitty-gritty stuff about the body works.

When did I claim that these laws work in another universe with a different set of rules?

I am done arguing this. Facts can be observed. A fact cannot be stated, but they can be described as accurately as possible.

__________________

////\\// IRONSKY.NET \\//\\\\

ays

What's the difference between seeing a bolt of lightning and observing different events and testimonies over time. You don't actually "see" the electron, but you see the result. Just like you don't "see" God, but you can see God working through people, events, and the world.

Take Chi for instance. Wind and Water, life force, energy. You don't "See" it, but you know that wind is moving the trees, chi moving through water. People who practice Tai Chi, and different Yoga meditations like Kundalini can feel it moving through their body and tell you about it. But scientists claim that it doesn't exist because they can't "see" it.

Science used to "See" a flat world. Science used to only "see" an atom. Observation and "seeing" can only go so far. Sometimes you have to feel, and believe.

__________________
ReadEZArchive.com - Seach and Submit FREE Articles! Webmasters join our Link Exchange.

Hain

The ancient Greeks saw the world as round. It wasn't science that told them it wasn't. Yes once we could only see atoms, but we didn't have the vision (or the tools) to see it further than that. Just imagine what we'll "see" tomorrow.

And, please, do not think I haven't my mystical side. No one pays attention to signatures these days, "Please take into account: I still think Labyrinth is one of the coolest movies ever made." I'll just never find comfort in placing confidence in something that can't be recreated or demonstrated.

__________________

////\\// IRONSKY.NET \\//\\\\

ays

You know Augi, I can safely say that everyone is right in their own rite. I think more important than who's right or wrong, is what can you learn and share with eachother.

I truly believe that mysticism is what is lost in the world today. It's so easy to get caught in routines, and invisible safety nets. Where's the adventure, the excitement, and the unknown! That's what I'm all about. Life is a journey, and you are the knight, princess, king, or whatever you dream!

I would like to recommend a book to you that I am currently reading. It was a gift from my uncle, and so far it's fantastic. It's called "Behold the Spirit: A Study in the Necessity of Mystical Religion" It's by Alan Watts. GREAT read!

__________________
ReadEZArchive.com - Seach and Submit FREE Articles! Webmasters join our Link Exchange.

filtherton

That doesn't invalidate what I said. The idea of an electron is a very useful one for explaining the behavior damn near everything, but that doesn't mean that there is actually such a thing as an electron.


Yes, you and i can both be fairly certain that it would prudent to get out of the way of a speeding car, and as long as one doesn't dig too deep, completely logically sound. But once you pass a certain threshold, all you have is a completely unproven faith in your own perceptive abilities.

It is circular. In the parlance of proof such things beg the question. "I think, therefore i am', is just another way of saying "I exist because i can experience things." Unless you're just going to call it axiomatic, it begs the question: How can you be certain that existence is a necessary condition for experiencing things? Have you ever not existed, and did you experience anything then? Is it possible to exist and experience nothing?

If it's axiomatic then it would be beneficial to be aware that axioms cannot validate themselves. If it isn't axiomatic (it kinda has to be axiomatic) then the the implication is that there exists some sort of proof.

These may seem like dumb questions. For most any sort of real problem they are. They do, however, speak to the inherent subjectivity of existence.

I was pointing out that it is fallacious to extend models beyond the assumptions used to create them. I was drawing an analogy between over extending models for fluid flow to you over extending the models that make up modern physics.

I didn't say anything about wrongness. I just said that nobody knows whether one is "true" or not. Either one explains observable phenomena pretty accurately, but they can't both be "true". Occam's razor isn't science.

Look, i'm not saying science hasn't developed a pretty reliable and useful way of understanding and doing things, i'm just saying that it is a mistake to treat scientific models as anything other than models. They aren't reality, they just predict it well under many circumstances. It is a fine point, but a valid one nonetheless.

Well, when you claimed that an alternate set of universal laws would prohibit the existence of matter, because of the "wonderful interconnectivity with the theories of science." Implicit in this assumption is that you can use current models to predict whether matter could form under conditions for which the current models don't apply.

Why would you expect any of the current theories of science to have anything interesting to say about a universe with different physical laws? Why would the prevalence of certain constants in a universe such as ours necessarily imply anything about a universe with different physical laws than ours.

You and willravel can start a club.

abaya

There is no such thing.
They do reflect that. I don't see how you can see anything else being reflected but that. There is no inherent meaning in the universe, and that's a very beautiful thing.
That's a pretty human-centered way of looking at things. Not really odd. It just is. Yeah, and that has nothing to do with God, and everything to do with science. That is what the whole focus of science is... to figure out what the heck is going on.
Talk about covering all your bases... anything goes, huh? As long as God is involved. What's so scary about taking God out of the picture?
You have to ask yourself why things reflect creation to you. What are the factors that influence you to think that way? What are the reasons that you want to believe so badly in creation? You must admit, when it comes down to it, you just WANT to believe in God, and you're not going to listen to anyone telling you any differently. That would be more honest than coming up with a bunch of random justifications for the universe being the way it is. Because when it comes down to it, none of us have a clue. Some of us want to believe in God. Some of us can no longer do that, even if we want to... because the justifications eventually stop making sense, if you let them take their course.

__________________
And think not you can direct the course of Love;
for Love, if it finds you worthy, directs your course.
--Khalil Gibran

ays

No such thing as self-less love? What about a mother's love for her child?

So your post had absolutely no meaning at all?

Why does science need to figure out what the heck is going on if everything is inherently meaningless and just is? Can you explain that infinite desire that's contained within our finite bodies?

So you just WANT to not believe in God then?

Here's why things reflect creation to me and not an explosion:

An explosion produces chaos and not order.

When a man and woman have a child, they try their hardest out of love to direct and raise the child the right way and provide a good life for him/her.

This SO reflects God creating Adam and Eve and trying to guide them in the right direction, but just like a child they disobeyed. And why did they disobey? Because they were created in God's image, they were FREE. Just like us. You can choose to turn from God's love, as can I.

It makes so much more sense to me, that things were perfect and we are turning away from God's love, and not an explosion that is building up to something.

The easiest way I can put things.. Does a hammer have a purpose? Does a hammer have meaning? This simple tool has a purpose, don't you think human life is a bit more important than a tool? Your hands are used to pick up and hold things, your legs used to move around, lungs to breath, mouth to speak, eyes to see, brain to think! This is all just random?

Sorry if it just doesn't seem even the least bit logical to me.

And listen, I'm far passed being scared of God not being in the picture. From the age of 12 till about 18 I was an atheist. Trust me, while I was in inpatient rehab for drug convictions and overdosing, and they were trying to lead me to my spiritual problem.. I was sneaking in the book, "Atheism: a case against God." While I was in school, I was looking on the internet about contradictions in the Bible. I used to hate the God that didn't exist.

It's when I started seeing God's love in my life that I was led to Him.

Just because I believe in God, doesn't mean that I need a crutch, or that I'm brainwashed and scared of reality. It means that life has purpose and meaning to me, and that my very existance is out of Love.

__________________
ReadEZArchive.com - Seach and Submit FREE Articles! Webmasters join our Link Exchange.

sprocket

I agree... how uncreative must our "supreme deity" be to just magically whisk everything into existence as it is now. In my mind, it really does this deity a huge disservice to ignore all the inner workings of the universe and believe its all just not real. My parents are deeply catholic, and my father in particular loves learning about science. The more and more we understand about just how complicated everything is, from evolution to quantum mechanics, I would think it would make one more in awe of their supreme creator's power and amazed at his creation... and this is really how my father feels. Instead many just brush it under the rug and say it couldn't have happened that way because it contradicts with how they have chosen to interpret an extremely vague religious text.

__________________
Remember, wherever you go... there you are.

Willravel

Meaning is not something to be assigned by a third party, but rather something everyone can develop for themselves. I find great meaning in knowledge, as do many other people. It helps to make clear the natures of the universe. While there is no inherent meaning, or rather there is no universal meaning, that hardly means one cannot have personal meaning.

You should read the works of Meister Eckhart. He was one of Christianity's great theologians, who lived about 700 years ago in Germany, that had some really interesting ideas about what god is. My brother in law, a monk, swears by him.
This just illustrates what you may not know.

Let's say, hypotheically, that I build a claymore mine. I use a kilo of C4 explosive, which has a simple detonator attached at two points on the bottom of the C4, which I have shaped into a semi-sphere. I use stainless ball bearings as the shrapnel, and evenly distribute them over the C4. Let's also say that I'm executing this experiment in a room with no wind and that can measure the trajectory of each ball bearing for as long as it goes and can feed that data into a computer. I get to a safe distance and detonate the explosive. Boom. The data comes back. It seems that each ball landed about the same distance from it's counterpart on the opposite side of the C4. If one ball was one inch from the top on the right side, it landed around the same place as the ball one inch from the top on the left. Fascinating, no? And those balls that were not uniformly distributed can be explained by purity of the C4, or by other variables. You see, it's not chaos at all. It's this wonderful symmetrical thing and each part that isn't symmetrical can be explained by a variable. That's the beauty of physics. It's like classical music. Every note is there for a reason and can be explained, and when it all happens it's like a symphony of science (forgive the cheese, but I really do see it that way).

ays

You're absolutely right. I feel like that's one of the biggest issues with modern religion. There's too much black and white, this or that. If you look at yin and yang, you will notice that black is a part of white and white apart of black. They are seperate parts of the same thing. Like light and shadow.

__________________
ReadEZArchive.com - Seach and Submit FREE Articles! Webmasters join our Link Exchange.

Hain

@ filtherton:

Yeah we ought to start a club - we'll even have jackets!

SO I can't use observations, because the accuracy and validity of the observations comes into question. I can't use models because a model isn't fact, which I understand. I can't use statistics because that is just another model... So all I am really left with is a bunch of "hallucinations" I have "faith" in?

I honestly can see your reasoning. I think it is wrong though and I haven't a clue how to put it. Let me just refer to any experience as a hallucination. "Why I do not see my trust in hallucinations as faith" - I can turn to my make-believe models that are based on these hallucinations and predict how the next hallucination will occur given a specific set of hallucinated conditions. In fact, others can turn to my hallucinated models and predict their hallucinations situated with similar hallucinated conditions as well. As far as I know, there is nothing to be done like that with God. Well you can hallucinate God... I don't... but I guess you could. Please no one attack this, it is sarcastic.

I [think that I] understand your position... but I do not make your conclusion between faith in God and my trust in perceived physical experience.

Off Topic: Also I still think with what I know about science, if I throw an apple down some stable wormhole to the next universe were geometry is bent to hell, up is sideways, two dimensions of time, one of the universal forces is "screel", and only god would know what else... I think the apple won't last long to make applejuice. If I could demonstrate it, you know I would, and spend the rest of my days dropping apples into oblivion.

. . . . .

@ Ays:Throughout our experience this is the only thing we have known: if something appears designed, then that thing was most likely created by someone. Just like a hammer, maybe not made by a man, but the machines that made it were crafted by engineers. When looking at the universe, we apply that experience that seeming crafted things were created by someone.

Those words, "God has a plan for me," just don't seem to help as we can't even help each other. I help my friends, I help strangers, and the same happens to me. I think we ought to find our purpose with each other. When we can do that in peace and harmony, then we ought to worry about God. I'll put my faith in each other and wish the best because I can't keep listening to the silence, I can't keep reading the same Book.

. . . . . EDIT:
Bingo. Any ideas on what the jackets should look like?

@ Sprocket:
Trust me, it blows my mind thinking about this stuff, how well the universe is laid out. It points me towards something, and I will spend the rest of my life searching for that something.

__________________

////\\// IRONSKY.NET \\//\\\\

ays

How could a piece have meaning without the whole having any?

Perhaps an engine sitting on a pile of bricks? The engine has meaning, and the bricks have meaning, but what about the whole? Well, who put the engine on the bricks? Why am I even concerned about the engine on the bricks?

But what's different about that and the universe, is the universe works as a whole so how on earth could it not have any meaning?

__________________
ReadEZArchive.com - Seach and Submit FREE Articles! Webmasters join our Link Exchange.

sprocket

This is the same logic the Kirk Cameron brigade uses... The argument that nothing can exist without a designer that created it, with a specific purpose in mind.

Which just begs the question... who designed the designer, and the designer's designer, and so on. At some point you have to concede that something down the line has just "always existed". Yet they wont allow that possibility to exist for all the matter in the universe. The argument eats it self in a giant puff of circular logic.

__________________
Remember, wherever you go... there you are.

abaya

I did not say that the universe was inherently meaningless. I said that it has no inherent meaning, in itself. That does not mean that people cannot come up with their own meanings, a la what Will said.

And no, I don't just NOT want to believe in God. Quite the opposite. My belief in God was by and far the most powerful, dominant force in my life for a number of years. I was as faithful and fervent as you are right now. I miss that part of my life keenly. None of that changes the fact of what I already said:

__________________
And think not you can direct the course of Love;
for Love, if it finds you worthy, directs your course.
--Khalil Gibran

Willravel

I'm thinking letterman jackets with the invisible pink unicorn logo on them.
I said it didn't have inherent meaning, not that it can't have meaning. The idea is to assign the meaning yourself. I do assign meaning to the whole.
It doesn't have universal meaning. There's no single meaning for it all. The meaning is all in our heads. It exists, just like my imagination exists, but it can't be universal because we don't all assign the same meanings... and meanings can't be wrong.

ays

Why don't you guys just all have the same jacket, and put whatever Letter each of you want on it! And it doesn't even have to be a letter, you could put pizza on it if you wanted.

I can agree with that.

And I'm willing to say that the God I refer to most often, and the meaning I put behind it could quite possibly be related to the same "Universal" meaning that you have in your life.

I don't think of it as My God, or This God or That. I think of All as Is. Like the Tao or Life force. I just believe that there is infinite meaning and purpose behind everything that Is. Moreso than whatever meaning we put behind it.

If I say a Dog is a giraffe does that make it reality? Does that meaning I put behind it make it true?

It's not about us finding God or possessing Him. It's about relaxing our lives and giving our souls to Him.

And I'm not saying Him like He's just this guy up in heaven (which He might be, who knows?) But I say Him, like the Yang, the aggressive force that combines with Yin, the Mother, and creates Life.

It's all One in the same to me. All truth. The problems arise due to our Free Nature. Since we were created in God's image, with the ability to be Free, we can choose to turn from God.

I think God did that so we can choose to return to Him.

__________________
ReadEZArchive.com - Seach and Submit FREE Articles! Webmasters join our Link Exchange.

Infinite_Loser

Fix'd.

I see, I see. So God needs an explantion but the universe doesn't? How does that work?

Theories such as this and this

...And you want to believe God doesn't exist. See. I can make that statement, too.

So, so, so ironic...

Fix'd again.

God makes sense. A non-belief in God doesn't.

__________________
I believe in equality; Everyone is equally inferior to me.

Willravel

Meaning and explanation are two different things.
...and why do those frighten you? I happen to think that the big bounce is wonderful. This has all happened before and it will all happen again.
The big white guy with a beard and bipolar disorder (compare OT to NT) that wished everything into existence makes sense and a big bang doesn't. M'kay!

ays

That is what I am constantly coming to grips with on a moment to moment basis!

God is Infinite. There can only be one infinite. For as long as man has existed there has been a realization of God, the creator. It wasn't until the philosophical era that man started to doubt creation, the theories of Darwin in the late 1800's that man started thinking of evolution, and the universal exploration in the 50's that man started to think about the Big Bang.

God ain't nothin new. God was there in the beginning, it's us who turns and runs!

__________________
ReadEZArchive.com - Seach and Submit FREE Articles! Webmasters join our Link Exchange.

Hain

Yet we could have just made Him up, so we didn't feel so small and alone, or we needed to create such deities.

I am not going to believe in anything supernatural that reeks entirely of human invention. There is so much that exists outside of this little blue speck! Besides us, nothing about it is anthropomorphic! I want to find something out there in my journeys. When I've got a name for it, and this forum is still around, I'll post a thread on it.

@ Willravel:
Pizza slices or unicorns? I was thinking something 80's-ish... since for some reason no one wants to recall the 80's.

__________________

////\\// IRONSKY.NET \\//\\\\

Willravel

I suspect the best compromise is the invisible pink unicorn eating pizza. I'll take low carb pizza, though.