Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

GOD strikes Ashcroft ill.Follow

#27 Mar 07 2004 at 2:05 AM Rating: Decent
*
188 posts
Hell of a good post Gbaji.

I believe that Christianity is a natural extention of the long gone Roman Empire, or was at least until it fragmented into a myriad of denominations. Rome fell, but continued to basically rule the western world through the Vatican through the dark ages. The rennaissance was a forward step away from a nasty theocracy. It seems to me that the church is again trying to wrest control of the US through the Texas Evangellicals who head the executive and legislative branches of the federal goverment.

Before anyone gets too huffy, please do some research. I think you'll find my opinion is at least possible.
#28 Mar 07 2004 at 2:35 AM Rating: Decent
****
7,486 posts
going back to the original subject... what happened to ashcroft? i didnt see anything on the headlines for MSN. can someone post a link or give me the jist of what happened.
#29 Mar 07 2004 at 3:18 AM Rating: Decent
*
188 posts
Quote:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft remained in intensive care at a local hospital on Saturday because of a painful illness that involves inflammation of the pancreas, the Justice Department said.

A department spokesman said Ashcroft's condition was unchanged, without specifying what it was, since he was admitted to George Washington University hospital on Thursday complaining of stomach pains and diagnosed with a severe case of gallstone-caused pancreatitis.


from http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=578&e=7&u=/nm/20040306/ts_nm/people_ashcroft_dc


#30 Mar 07 2004 at 4:32 AM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,643 posts
When I was listening to the news Friday, one of the anchors kept faltering over the name. I swear I heard him say either '***-craft' or '***-crash', which I found rather amusing.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#31 Mar 07 2004 at 12:31 PM Rating: Good
Quote:
When I was listening to the news Friday, one of the anchors kept faltering over the name. I swear I heard him say either '***-craft' or '***-crash', which I found rather amusing.


I think there is another thread here that talks about an '***-crash' which occurred when the '***-craft' came across a dutch oven.

Purely speculation at this point I believe.

#32 Mar 07 2004 at 12:46 PM Rating: Decent
*
77 posts
Yanari wrote:
I have faith that we'll figure out the answers eventually.

Reality is subjective, obviously. In my reality, we are all responsible, accountable and self determined, so we'd better take care of this world, and each other. In my reality nobody else is going to do this for us.

I don't think this makes me a cynical f*cktwit.


I don't believe in any of the world's religions as they are because they're obviously man-made, and the product of humanity's desire to have a measure of control over what is not controllable. I have my own beliefs about how the universe came to be and why it evolves, and they were arrived at by simply thinking about things as I see them. "Religion" or "spirituality" or "self-awareness" is a completely personal thing, and my views don't involve some self-aware, all-knowing, all-seeing, benevolent entity guiding my steps through life.

I didn't refer to Deathwysh (man there's an original nick...and a not-so-subtle way of compensating for some sort of shortcoming)as a cynical f*ckwit for criticizing other's beliefs. I called him a cynical f*ckwit because he obviously hasn't given much thought to his pronouncement that life and the whole of the unfathomable universe is one big, giant coincidence.

With all the reasons that life as we know it could have NOT evolved on this planet (so many reasons that they'd almost be mathematically incalculable), boy oh boy are we EVER lucky that everything fell into place the way it did eh? PHEW!

EDIT: Yes, I agree, this discussion's pointless, and I apologize to all for having participated in derailing a thread of political bent. No more on this topic from me.

Edited, Sun Mar 7 12:47:51 2004 by Fellgaze
#33 Mar 07 2004 at 9:20 PM Rating: Decent
****
5,311 posts
Allright. As long as you're not calling all atheists cynical f*cktwits, that's fine.

Just wanted to clear that up.
#34 Mar 07 2004 at 11:26 PM Rating: Decent
***
2,453 posts
Quote:
I didn't refer to Deathwysh (man there's an original nick...and a not-so-subtle way of compensating for some sort of shortcoming)as a cynical f*ckwit for criticizing other's beliefs. I called him a cynical f*ckwit because he obviously hasn't given much thought to his pronouncement that life and the whole of the unfathomable universe is one big, giant coincidence.


The name Deathwish was given to me in highschool for the reckless abandon with which I pursued things. Oddly, it was given to me again by some of the men with which I served because I reminded them of a character by that name in a Harry Harrison novel.

Despite what you may think, I have given a great deal of thought about the origins of our universe. If the only origin you can accept is that everything was made by some big man in the sky, that's fine. Intellectually, I cannot accept that. It raises the question, where did the big man in the sky come from?

And if the big man in the sky transcends time, if he just 'always was', then the same could be said of the universe that we know. It just always was. Forever expanding until the interia of the last big bang is overcome by the forces of gravity, and it all starts to collapse again into one huge ball so dense that it forces another bang. And it all starts over again.

Maybe next time there won't be any life. Maybe there will. Its quite irrelevant to me.


Quote:
With all the reasons that life as we know it could have NOT evolved on this planet (so many reasons that they'd almost be mathematically incalculable), boy oh boy are we EVER lucky that everything fell into place the way it did eh? PHEW!


Really? So let me ask you, how many times has this happened?
How many times has the universe been through this whole "big-bang/expansion/collapse/big-bang" process? Are you assuming that THIS is the only time its happened? Have you considered the possibility that it has happened an incalculable number of times? If it has... well that certainly makes the odds a lot stronger in our favor, eh? Maybe life has evolved every time. Maybe this is the only time. Maybe its every other time. Once again, I don't know (and neither do you).

Edited, Sun Mar 7 23:30:31 2004 by Deathwysh
#35 Mar 08 2004 at 12:02 AM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Fellgaze wrote:
With all the reasons that life as we know it could have NOT evolved on this planet (so many reasons that they'd almost be mathematically incalculable), boy oh boy are we EVER lucky that everything fell into place the way it did eh? PHEW!


Just wanted to add something to this quote. Fellgaze. You are making a fundamental mathmatecal/statistical error. You are looking at things the way they happen to be and calculating the odds of things having happened exactly as they did, and then discounting "random chance" to have produced that result due to the resulting probabilities.

The problem with that sort of logic is that it's a null argument. It means nothing. You can do the same kinda bogus math (and relating disprove) about anything.

You are sitting at a red light. Now. Calculate the odds that at the exact instant that you are in, your car would happen to be at that exact spot, with the light the color it is. Now. What are the odds that also at that exact instant, the wind would be traveling in the exact direction it is at the exact speed it's traveling. The leaves on the trees around you would number exactly the number they have. Their movement as a result of the wind would be exactly the way they are moving. The people in the cars around you and on the sidewalks would all be in the exact spots they are in, moving exactly the way they are moving and in the exact positions they are in at that exact moment.

The odds are basically impossible. If you took out a bet defining just a dozen variables that could occur at any given moment, your odds of being exactly right are incalculably small. While you could never predict ahead of time the exact states of each of these things, we can say that since there will always be some combination of these things that could possibly occur, that somewhere those exact conditions do occur. The fact that at that moment, sitting in your car at a red light, you can look around you and see that the whole of the world is sitting in a very specific state proves this. You could sit there and marvel at the extreme unlikelyhood that things happened to occur exactly as they did, or you can accept that things are the way they are right now, and so therefore, no matter how unlikely, that was the reality of what did happen.

Same logic applies with life on this planet. The odds of it occuring may be extremely small, however, the very fact that we're sitting here talking about it means that it *did* happen.

So we can look at the following probabilities:

1. We evolved as a result of random chances, which just happened to be right at a particular time and space to put us where we are.

2. Somehow a supremely powerful being evolved that created us directly. This could be "God", or super powerful aliens, or anything else other then randome chance that resulted in us being here.


See. The problem is that the odds of number 2 happening are *smaller* then that of number 1. This can be proved simply because in order for number 2 to have occured, number 1 must have already happened somewhere else. The intellect or whatever that non-randomly created us must have itself come from somewhere (ie: event chain number 1 happened for it/them). Why not accept the much more direct answer that we're simply the result of the first probability and go on from there? It's the simpler and more logical answer. Certainly, number 2 is possible, but until we have some evidence to support it, and some reason why assuming number 1 isn't true, there's no reason to assume number 2 instead. Certainly, assuming the second possibility in situations where it hampers us is totally silly (like using it as a justification to attack or prevent scientific improvement of our species). But that's religion for you...
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#36 Mar 08 2004 at 12:15 AM Rating: Good
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Quote:
It raises the question, where did the big man in the sky come from?

And if the big man in the sky transcends time, if he just 'always was', then the same could be said of the universe that we know. It just always was.
Pretty much. Whatever views I might hold on whether or not a divine being exists, the fact that said being is infinite never bothered me. Mankind hasn't solved the issues of the material universe so why pretend that a divine being doesn't exist unless we can solve it? You can sit around and say "Well, if there is a God, where did God come from?" but one of the properties of being divine is that it's outside of mortal comprehension. It's a fine bit of hubris to say nothing can exist unless we can understand its existance Smiley: wink
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#37 Mar 08 2004 at 1:23 AM Rating: Decent
*
77 posts
Deathwysh wrote:
If the only origin you can accept is that everything was made by some big man in the sky, that's fine. Intellectually, I cannot accept that. It raises the question, where did the big man in the sky come from?


Okay, to make this clear once more...

Fellgaze wrote:
"...and my views don't involve some self-aware, all-knowing, all-seeing, benevolent entity guiding my steps through life..."


I thought that rather clearly established that I do not, in fact, believe in some "big man in the sky". Maybe it didn't...or maybe you just missed it. You decide.

Quote:
It just always was. Forever expanding until the interia of the last big bang is overcome by the forces of gravity, and it all starts to collapse again into one huge ball so dense that it forces another bang. And it all starts over again.

Exactly so. However, since there is no verifiable way of confirming this, never has been, and never will be...you're making a leap of faith if you believe that explanation, which is exactly the same as believing in a god without having any proof it exists.

Quote:
Its quite irrelevant to me.


Cynical defined; "...Negative or pessimistic, as from world-weariness....Expressing jaded or scornful skepticism or negativity..."

I think I could also add apathetic to the qualifiers that fit you.

Quote:
Really? So let me ask you, how many times has this happened? How many times has the universe been through this whole "big-bang/expansion/collapse/big-bang" process? Are you assuming that THIS is the only time its happened? Have you considered the possibility that it has happened an incalculable number of times?


Yes, I have, and that's exactly why I believe what I believe.

Quote:
If it has... well that certainly makes the odds a lot stronger in our favor, eh?

Oh yes, this Big Bang may indeed have happened so many times that out of the trillions upon trillions upon trillions of stellar bodies in the universe, our planet finally got a shot. Yes, those represent "stronger odds". Then again, maybe it didn't, and maybe this is the first time. As you said...I don't know, and neither do you.

I think you're missing the point; I'm not criticizing your atheistic beliefs, I'm criticizing the rather offhanded way you had of crapping on those of others when you're faced with rather strong evidence that they may, in fact, have a point.

GAH!!! I love a good debate...couldn't keep up my resolve to not post about this anymore.

#38 Mar 08 2004 at 1:27 AM Rating: Decent
*
77 posts
Jophiel wrote:
It's a fine bit of hubris to say nothing can exist unless we can understand its existance Smiley: wink


Such an open mind is...disturbing. The Force is strong in this one....
#39 Mar 08 2004 at 1:57 AM Rating: Decent
*
77 posts
gbaji, there were really only two points out of your post that I found relative to this particular debate;


gbaji wrote:
So we can look at the following probabilities:

1. We evolved as a result of random chances, which just happened to be right at a particular time and space to put us where we are.

2. Somehow a supremely powerful being evolved that created us directly. This could be "God", or super powerful aliens, or anything else other then randome chance that resulted in us being here.


See. The problem is that the odds of number 2 happening are *smaller* then that of number 1. This can be proved ...


No, it can't. It can be assumed, it can be believed, extrapolated, theorized, cogitated or meditated upon, but it can't be proven. You don't have the slightest inkling of how large the universe is, if it's singular or plural in nature, how it came into being, or how old it is. You don't know if our paltry laws of physics, time and space apply in every nook of it. You don't know if there are other forms of life out there. You don't know what those forms of life might be capable of. The sheer scope of what you don't know or understand about the universe is so stupendous that you are in no position to state you can "prove" much of anything about it, beyond the most basic notions like "If I slap my hand down into a bed of glowing coals, it might hurt."

And besides, if you really want to have a debate about this with me, I've already stated I don't believe that the driving energy of the universe is a "supremely powerful being", or that it's even self-aware.

Here's the other point I could "get" and that I thought was germane to all this;

Quote:
"The intellect or whatever that non-randomly created us must have itself come from somewhere"


Again, taking into account that I don't necessarily believe the driving energy of the universe is even self-aware, then the assumption that it had to "evolve" from something is hugely flawed. Since your beliefs are so earth-bound, then you can't dispute that energy and matter are never *ever* lost; they just change state. It's one of the fundamental concepts of our laws of physics. And since no one on this planet has an inkling about the true nature of time, not a one of us knows if it's possible, in fact, to have "always been". You're trying to analyze something that, by its very definition, defies analysis. We all think the universe is just so, but since we barely know the first thing about our own galaxy, well..claiming you can "prove" anything beyond doubt is really pretty damned conceited.

Bottom line? I believe that there's an impulse that exists in this universe that is constantly struggling to find or create a semblance of balance, and that it runs through every single sub-atomic particle, and through everything else that may exist that we don't even know about yet. I strongly reject the notion that we live in a universe careening madly out of control, without purpose or goal. I can't prove it, no...but evolution alone seems to point more towards logic (strong, successful, "efficient" species survive while flawed species die out) then random chance, doesn't it?
#40 Mar 08 2004 at 4:53 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Um... Yes. It can be proven.

Take a count of all numbers. This is an infinite number (there's no limit to the number of numbers that exist, right?).

Ok. Now take a count of all the even numbers. Um... That's also infinite. However, it's infnite to a smaller degree then the former set.

We can prove this mathmatically even without counting up all the numbers (which we could obviously never do).

When you talk about probabilities you can apply the exact same logic. If one set includes the entirety of another set plus some other stuff, then it's *always* going to be larger, or at least the same size.

For example: We can say without counting damn thing that since the set of "swallows" includes the entire set of "european swallows" and "african swallows", that therefor there must be at least as many swallows as there are european swallows. We can conclude that there are probably more, but we can't guaranteed that (since we haven't actually counted to verify that the number of african swallows does not equal zero. We can also further state that since swallows is a complete subset of "birds", that there must be at least as many birds as there are swallows (and therefore at least as many birds as there are european swallows). We can also predict that there are likely more birds then euopean swallows, and in fact only need to find a single instance of any kind of bird other then a european swallow to prove that there are in fact more birds then european swallows.


Follow that logic? That's like logic 101 really.


Ok. So what about creation? First some assumptions:

1. In order for intelligent life to exist, it must at some point have come into being. I'd think this should be obvious, but I state it anyway.

2. Intelligent life could come into being via one of two ways: random creation or as the result of another intelligence creating it.


So. When calculating improbabilities we have two broad sets.


The chance of intelligent life spawning spotaneously with no other intelligence driving it. Set ONE.

The chance of intelligent life being created specifically by another already intelligent life. Set TWO.


Thus, set ONE is a subset of set TWO when looking at the unlikelyhood of a particular event happening (it's important to phrase it that way). In order for set TWO to occur, there must exist a non-zero set ONE. Must. No other possibility.

Thus, we can conclude a following:


It is possible for set ONE to be non zero and set TWO to be zero. (ie: intelligent life could spotaneously exist without itself taking the time to create yet more intelligent life. Pretend this is God, but he hasn't created us yet).

It is absolutely impossible for set TWO to exist with a non-zero set ONE. Absolutely positively certain. No question. No doubt.


Thus, it is more likely for set ONE to exist then set TWO. Set two contains more requirements (which include set ONE), thus is has a higher level of improbabilty, thus it's less likely to happen. Given a lack of evidence for our existence to be the restult of set TWO, it is most logical to assume that we came about via the circumstances outlined in set ONE. At least until we have some evidence to the contrary.


Now. You can try to refute the assumptions that this logic is based on. I think you'll find it hard to do though. They're pretty basic.



____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#41 Mar 08 2004 at 5:45 PM Rating: Decent
***
1,817 posts
smasharoo wrote:
There isn't a God.


oh there is. and when christ returns to the earth to destroy evil and take home us that believe, i'm sure you'll be at the head of the pack headed to hide in the caves and cracks of the mountains. its easy to sit here now on the earth and say "***** you, i'd smack god in his head, etc etc." We'll see how easy it is for you and everyone else here to state these claims when faith becomes reality. It's just too bad for you and everyone else that chooses to believe this way that when faith becomes reality there will be no chance to say "hey wait...do over! I wasn't ready!" It's going to happen, and you nor I can stop that...the wheels are in motion as we speak and most either don't want to see it or would rather deny it is happening.

But hey..if your right then nothings gonna happen. after death, my existance will be little more than a memory that will sooner than later fade away on the face of time...maybe a little longer if I've left enough pictures or works here. In the case of this belief, I can see why many take their own lives.

But if I'm right...your taking an awful big risk. burning forever in fire hotter than anything you've felt but never dieing is a pretty big deterant for me alone..although fear of this is not the motivating factor in my belief. The alternative is a life of equality with no sin, no sickness, jealousy, envy, hate, cynicism, etc etc etc..

When it comes down to a comparison between the two, considering neither is 100% proveable your taking a risk either way...at least by believing, I get to hold on to belief that something better exists after this...and by striving to be a better person (which in reality is a win-win for me and everyone around me), I can rest better each day that 1) I'm not going to dissipate and be forgotten when I die and/or 2) I'm not going to burn forever without dieing.

It truly saddens me to think that ANYONE would want to accept anything more than at least HOPE for something better beyond this. Considering the alternatives in addition to that, it makes no sense otherwise. But to each their own...

Edited, Mon Mar 8 17:46:48 2004 by Empyre

Edited, Mon Mar 8 17:46:35 2004 by Empyre
#42 Mar 08 2004 at 6:24 PM Rating: Good
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Quote:
The chance of intelligent life spawning spotaneously with no other intelligence driving it. Set ONE.

The chance of intelligent life being created specifically by another already intelligent life. Set TWO.

Thus, set ONE is a subset of set TWO when looking at the unlikelyhood of a particular event happening (it's important to phrase it that way). In order for set TWO to occur, there must exist a non-zero set ONE. Must. No other possibility
Unless God (to use a familiar term) is indeed eternal, in which case he/she/it never "spawned spontaneously" but always was, with nothing predating he/she/it. Smiley: wink
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#43 Mar 08 2004 at 6:47 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Quote:
The chance of intelligent life spawning spotaneously with no other intelligence driving it. Set ONE.

The chance of intelligent life being created specifically by another already intelligent life. Set TWO.

Thus, set ONE is a subset of set TWO when looking at the unlikelyhood of a particular event happening (it's important to phrase it that way). In order for set TWO to occur, there must exist a non-zero set ONE. Must. No other possibility
Unless God (to use a familiar term) is indeed eternal, in which case he/she/it never "spawned spontaneously" but always was, with nothing predating he/she/it. Smiley: wink


Heh. Yeah. Kinda. But you're throwing in the infinity paradox there (just like adding up infinite numbers and comparing them). It makes it look like God "always" existed, but the logic I put forth still works. You just have to accept that there's something beyond time (which would kinda have to exist for the state you talk about to exist).


You're thinking of time in one dimension. Something that starts at one point and continues to another. I'm talking about it in abstract. At some "time", God had to come into being. Even if that was a higher infinite "time value" then what we see as time (think if our time being even numbers and "God Time" as being all numbers if it makes it easier), this still had to happen.

Regardless of how the intellect occured, if time was created (or even if it always was), then we can say that God in this case was created at the same "time" (even though the normal use of time doesn't really work). Point being that even the infinite had to be spontaneously created. Whether that happened inside of time, or in some conceptual dimension that includes time as a subset is irrelevant.


Um... And you're really throwing out a big IF there (I know you're semi-joking, but lots of people wouldn't be). We're still left with the the fact that the improbability of the God you are hypothesising is greater then that of humans spotaneously evolving into an intelligent species.


Put another way: Which is less likely:

God just happens to exist. Spontaneously, with no force to create him and also happens to be intelligent. He then consiously creates the universe and us.

The universe just happens to exist. Spontaneously, with no force to create it, but it's just a set of probabilities and forces. As a result of a number of random chances we end up evolving into intelligent beings.


Both require a spontaneous creation (or "always existed") status that we cannot really explain. However, the God theory assumes that intelligence is created (or always existed) as part of the whole enchilada as well. Same logic as I used earlier applies: If it's unlikely for the universe to exist, then it's even more unlikely for God to exist. Also, when we look at the probabilities of intelligence evolving randomly within the universe, we see a very small chance, but a very large number of opportunities for it to happen. However, in order for God to just "be" as the first thing rather then the universe, we'd need for intelligence to be created *first* (or always if you prefer). That's one chance. Not billions and billions of chances. One chance for the first thing to be intelligent.


Again. We're not saying which is true or not, because we cant test. However, we can say that it's more likely that we were generated by a non-thinking universe as the result of a set of random probabilities then that God was generated (or always was) and then created us. It's all about probabilities when you come down to it, and the later is just far less likely.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#44 Mar 08 2004 at 7:00 PM Rating: Good
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Yeah, that's kind of my point. It doesn't matter which is less likely, only what is truth.

Someone was once describing Occam's Razor to me and using the following example: Say you put a penny in your pocket. Later in the day you reach into your pocket and find your penny. Which is more likely, that the penny just stayed in your pocket or that aliens took your penny away and left an exact replica of your penny in its place to fool you? While the former is obviously more likely and thus more likely to be the case, the fact remains that if aliens did take your penny and leave a replica, you're wrong if you guess the first. It doesn't matter how unlikely it is or how much you can use logic to try to prove it's the same penny, you're still going to be wrong.

Same deal. You can write volumes describing how unlikely it is that God exists and that God is eternal, but the fact remains that if God does exist, you're just plain wrong. Since it's impossible to prove that God doesn't exist (as you can't prove a negative), you have to leave room for the possiblity, however remote or miniscule, that God does indeed exist. You can try to put the onus on me to prove that God does exist, and refuse to believe unless I present evidence, but that's irrelevant since if God exists, he exists outside of my ability to prove so.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#45 Mar 08 2004 at 7:37 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Certainly. And the belief or lack of belief is irrelevant until it interferes with the rest of reality (screech!).

You are free to believe that an alien took your penny and replaced it with an exact replica all you want. After all, it doesn't really matter, does it? However, if you then refuse to spend the penny because of its special status, and then starve to death because of a lack of cash to buy lunch, that's detrimental (ok. Not from a penny, but you get the point).


The point being that if the aliens did replace you penny, but you assume they didn't, and proceeded about your daily life as though everything was normal, what negative result would occur? If the aliens never reveal that they replaced the penny, then even though you are "wrong", you are still correct to continue on assuming the penny was never replaced.

If on the other hand, you assume it was replaced, and do something different, you may be right, but if the aliens never reveal themselves, then you'll never know you are right. Everything else being equal you gain nothing by assuming the penny was replaced, no matter how right that choice may be.


Same with religion. It's all well and good to believe in the less probable thing. After all, we can also state that not everything will always turn out to be the most probably thing (that would be pretty improbible actually!). But when we have folks making huge life altering changes as a result of their belief in God, and start enforcing changes on others as a result, at some point you've got to kinda step back and think: "What the heck is going on here?".

Just look at the few other threads on the front page of this forum to see evidence of this. Folks refusing to want a scientific theory taught because it conflicts with a religious belief. Folks comparing gay marriage to the war for independance (honestly, I'd think the Civil War would be a much better comparison, if still flawed, but odds are the person who made that statement is a moron anyway, so who cares?).


It's not the guy who happily believes that the space aliens replaced his penny, but doesn't really care about it that bothers me. It's the guy who runs around insisting that all my pennies have been replaced too, and then gets a billion other people to start changing laws about pennies and pocket use that really bothers me.

When we start seeing blocks applied to physics research because they're doing work that could apply to the big bang theory (and incidentally advance our knowledge a thousand times), I start to worry. It's when we see blocks applied to stem cell research, not on ethical grounds, but purely because "Only God can create life", even though we could discover cures to hundreds of diseases and ailments as a result, I start to get worried. The number of times religion has actively blocked the advancement of man's knowledge is pretty staggering really. Christiantiy in particular shows a remarkable willingness to allow men to suffer in ignorance rather then allow new thoughts that just might not follow their own religious beliefs.


It just boggles my mind that we're still fighting this battle. 2 thousand years, and people are still choosing to stick their heads in the sand rather then simply look around at the world the way it really is. Amazing...

Edited, Mon Mar 8 19:39:44 2004 by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#46 Mar 08 2004 at 7:46 PM Rating: Good
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
That's all fine. I'm not arguing any of that. Hell, I'm not even trying to prove the existance of God or convert anyone. I'd have a lot to get in order on my own spiritual plate before I could bother trying to convince anyone else of it. I was just having a bit of fun with your logical refutation of the existance of God.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#47 Mar 08 2004 at 8:00 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Heck. I've never tried to refute the possibility that God exists. I was merely pointing out that the probability of God existing is lower then that of us existing (which seems obvious since we can prove our own existance, but not that of God).

Fellgaze was sure that it was unprovable. I assured him that it was a mathmatical certainty. That's all I was trying to prove...
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#48 Mar 08 2004 at 9:50 PM Rating: Decent
*
77 posts
gbaji wrote:

You're thinking of time in one dimension. Something that starts at one point and continues to another. I'm talking about it in abstract. At some "time", God had to come into being. Even if that was a higher infinite "time value" then what we see as time (think if our time being even numbers and "God Time" as being all numbers if it makes it easier), this still had to happen.


That's a conceited way to look at things. Time works whatever way it works. You don't know, I don't know, and any theory you toss out on this topic is as valid as me saying human beings were spawned from the sh*t of plesiosaurs simply because you have no way of supporting any of it with facts. It's incredibly easy to say, "Blahblahblah therefore nothing else makes sense", and it's another to prove it. I repeat; you can theorize, but not prove. Proof would be something which cannot be refuted. You've offered zero irrefutable evidence so far, you only state you have. Big difference.

Second point; I don't know why you keep raising the point in your replies to me, but I'm not talking about God as he appears in the Bible or any other text. "God" to me is a symbolic representation of the natural impulse of the universe, a symbol created by humankind because it's the only way we can put into context something we don't understand. That "natural impulse" I'm talking about is like gravity or inertia, not self-aware and therefore not a supreme intelligence, 'kay? You're debating with me but preceding from a false assumption, that I'm talking about some wizened old Gandalf-like figure who exists in the clouds somewhere. I'm not.




#49 Mar 08 2004 at 10:04 PM Rating: Decent
*
77 posts
gbaji wrote:
Heck. I've never tried to refute the possibility that God exists. I was merely pointing out that the probability of God existing is lower then that of us existing (which seems obvious since we can prove our own existance, but not that of God).

Fellgaze was sure that it was unprovable. I assured him that it was a mathmatical certainty. That's all I was trying to prove...


It is unprovable. What you are doing, in legal circles, would be referred to as "raising reasonable doubt"; you can make a strong argument, but you can't close the deal, so to speak. This seems pretty obvious to me; I can "prove" that the human species needs a heart, a brain and blood to live simply by removing both organs from a healthy body, draining it of blood and then saying, "OK..now get up and walk." That's proof; it is undeniable, and no one could claim that "Well no, I have documented proof of a case in which this brainless, heartless, bloodless human once lived a normal and healthy life...". There is no doubt possible.

Who, in their right mind, could claim to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is, in fact, no overarching force or energy in existence throughtout the entirety of the universe and in all the possible plains of existence? You'd be much more accurate to say, "Here's why I believe that...." rather than "Here is proof that....".

Edited, Mon Mar 8 22:05:08 2004 by Fellgaze
#50 Mar 08 2004 at 10:18 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Fellgaze wrote:
I don't know why you keep raising the point in your replies to me, but I'm not talking about God as he appears in the Bible or any other text. "God" to me is a symbolic representation of the natural impulse of the universe, a symbol created by humankind because it's the only way we can put into context something we don't understand. That "natural impulse" I'm talking about is like gravity or inertia, not self-aware and therefore not a supreme intelligence, 'kay? You're debating with me but preceding from a false assumption, that I'm talking about some wizened old Gandalf-like figure who exists in the clouds somewhere. I'm not.



Ok...


Um...


Why did you disagree with me then?

My whole point was that it made more sense for humans to be the result of a "natural impulse" (as you call it) then something that was "self aware". So you are saying you agree with me completely then?

Look. I thought I summed it up very clearly. I don't care how you envison things, or what mental mechanism you go through to justify a continued belief in the divine while maintaining the appearance of accepting logic and fact. All that really matters is whether the force that resulted in our creation was driven as the result of intellect, or random forces/probabilities. Pick one. Either God has intelligence, or he doesn't. Period. There is nothing really in between those two. You can call the result "God", or "the universe", or the "Great Pumpkin" for all I care. None of that has any bearing on the validity of what I said and to which you disagreed.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#51 Mar 08 2004 at 10:26 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
BTW Fellgaze. You really need to go re-read what I said. At no point did I claim to "prove" the lack of existence of God.

What I did prove was that there is a higher probability that intelligent life could spontaneously evolve on this planet independantly of any outside intelligence, then that another intelligence was involved in our creation. It's a very simple logical proof. It does not require any physical evidence. It's based on simple logical proofs. The kind that a first year college student should be able to understand.

Just because you don't understand the proof does not invalidate it. You are welcome to refute it based on its merits. But you have not done so yet.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 330 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (330)