View Full Version : Do you beleave in God(Poll)
Byzantine Prince
05-14-2005, 18:26
I'm doing a poll to find out how many atheists we have among us. Ok so this is optional, you don't have to vote and it's confidential so vote as you please.
EDIT: SO far the Chrsitians are winning.
KukriKhan
05-14-2005, 18:42
SO far the Chrsitians are winning.
Is god only 'Chrsitian' for purposes of this poll?
Adrian II
05-14-2005, 18:47
Is god only 'Chrsitian' for purposes of this poll?I beleave so.
Snowhobbit
05-14-2005, 18:49
I don't believe in God but I'm not an atheist either, I'm agnostic :book:
Byzantine Prince
05-14-2005, 18:50
Yey, the Atheists are in the lead!
Is god only 'Chrsitian' for purposes of this poll?
I've only ever seen 3 muslims that post here and I haven't seen them on so I presumed the rest were Christian since the majority of people that come here are from North America and Europe.
I believe in a God, more specifically an omnipotent, omniscient, benevolent God...with strange reasons for making us all
Adrian II
05-14-2005, 18:52
I believe in a God, more specifically an omnipotent, omniscient, benevolent God...with strange reasons for making us allHe may have existed, but if he did I'm sure he killed himself over us.
I'm an Atheist, but not Agnostic. ~:)
:charge:
PanzerJaeger
05-14-2005, 18:56
If you are making this poll about the Christian God only, then the results will be much different than if you make it about an all powerful spirit..
Dutch_guy
05-14-2005, 18:57
I Don't believe in god
Byzantine Prince
05-14-2005, 18:58
I made it for everyone. Every god. Even Buddha.
KukriKhan
05-14-2005, 19:00
I beleave so.
:snicker:
Adrian II
05-14-2005, 19:01
I made it for everyone. Every god. Even Buddha.So why did you say the Chrsitians were winning? If I had known that this poll included Bebekung Mampa Hoonanooga, I'd of course have voted 'yes'.
~:)
KukriKhan
05-14-2005, 19:04
And in the last 'Pope' thread BP declared himself his own god, so one assumes he voted "yes".
Byzantine Prince
05-14-2005, 19:05
The poll itself doesn't specify which religion. It simply asks weather you beleave in a god or not.
The Christisn thing was just an assumption I made about who might have voted, it's irrelevent to the poll!
And in the last 'Pope' thread BP declared himself his own god, so one assumes he voted "yes".
I'm not god yet. ~;)
Idomeneas
05-14-2005, 19:13
Somebody had to be there to turn the key and start the engine of creation (not the Joe Satriani album).
I think we dont even know ourselves, its hard to determine if there is a god or not. I believe in god. I dont believe in church-company that exploits relligion. I dont believe that god has to be my babysitter or personal gini(sp?).
I know alot of unfair things happen in the world but as my people say:along with Athena move your hand also. Meanning dont expect everything from above.
Duke Malcolm
05-14-2005, 19:24
What about agnostics?! Ohh well, no possibly, so I'll have to say yes...
I'm not god yet. ~;)
What's taking so long?
I assume that the poll asks if there is a god who is not me, so I'll have to vote no.
Yes, I think we should beleave God. There is no way we can know for sure. Hence agnosticism is the only logical choice.
Byzantine Prince
05-14-2005, 20:10
Agnosticism is a form of atheism. You don't know for sure weather god exists, correct?
Well if you are skeptic that means that your brain knows that there is no god but the futility and meaninglessness of the world bend your will to saying: "well maybe he does exist since without him the world is meaningless". So deep in your logical part of the brain you KNOW, you are 100%, god does not exist, but in your emotional part you think he does. You are split because you haven't considered other options
Well maybe the world is MEANT to be random and meaningless. Maybe THAT is the meaning of it.
Agnosticism is a form of atheism. You don't know for sure weather god exists, correct?
Well if you are skeptic that means that your brain knows that there is no god but the futility and meaninglessness of the world bend your will to saying: "well maybe he does exist since without him the world is meaningless". So deep in your logical part of the brain you KNOW, you are 100%, god does not exist, but in your emotional part you think he does. You are split because you haven't considered other options
Assumption alert. How do you know how all Agnostics think?
Craterus
05-14-2005, 20:20
I believe in God.
Devastatin Dave
05-14-2005, 20:22
I believe in God and I believe he has a wonderful sense of humor, that's why BP is here. ~D
Adrian II
05-14-2005, 20:28
I believe in God and I believe he has a wonderful sense of humor, that's why BP is here. ~DThe 'yays' are gaining on the 'nays'.. Quick, somebody, redefine the premises!
~:eek:
Big_John
05-14-2005, 20:59
i voted "no". i'm kind of an apathetic atheist. i don't care whether there is a god(s) or not.. but if i had to pick for some reason, i'm definitely in the nay camp until i see a miracle or something.
Skomatth
05-14-2005, 20:59
I believe in a God, more specifically an omnipotent, omniscient, benevolent God...with strange reasons for making us all
How did you determine that God possess these characteristics? I for one find them quite irreconcilable. Take for one God's supposed omnipotence, omniscience and benevolence (or more typically called his perfect goodness IIRC). Then the Argument from Evil is quite easy to make.
(1) If God exists then he is omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good.
(2) If God were omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good then the world would not contain evil.
(3) The world contains evil.
Therefore:
(4) It is not the case that God exists.
Snowhobbit
05-14-2005, 21:06
Agnosticism is a form of atheism. You don't know for sure weather god exists, correct?
Well if you are skeptic that means that your brain knows that there is no god but the futility and meaninglessness of the world bend your will to saying: "well maybe he does exist since without him the world is meaningless". So deep in your logical part of the brain you KNOW, you are 100%, god does not exist, but in your emotional part you think he does. You are split because you haven't considered other options
Well maybe the world is MEANT to be random and meaningless. Maybe THAT is the meaning of it.
I don't "beleave" in God simply because I'm not sure if he exists, it can't really be proven that he doesn't exist hence it is reasonable to doubt his existence. I don't mix in any emotions, my belief has nothing to do with conceiving the world to be meaningless, infact I don't perceive the world as meaningless...
Craterus
05-14-2005, 21:08
I believe that God has evil in the world because there has to be a balance of good and evil. Life would be rather boring if evil did not exist.
Big_John
05-14-2005, 21:09
Skomatth, does one have to deterime the characteristics of a thing to believe in it? (not a rhtorical question, btw)
other than that, how do you justify (2) and (3)? why would "the world" be deviod of evil if such a god existed? and how do you know "evil" exists in the world?
Adrian II
05-14-2005, 21:15
i voted "no". i'm kind of an apathetic atheist. i don't care whether there is a god(s) or not.. Funny, that goes for me too, only I feel I am forced to care because religion is still such a big deal in today's world. Sometimes I catch myself looking at religious services or processions the way we watch tv history programmes about funny aviation concepts that never made it into the sky. Know what I mean?
http://www.century-of-flight.net/aviation%20history/Aviation%20history/helicopter%20history/images/5.jpg
Byzantine Prince
05-14-2005, 21:30
I don't "beleave" in God simply because I'm not sure if he exists, it can't really be proven that he doesn't exist hence it is reasonable to doubt his existence. I don't mix in any emotions, my belief has nothing to do with conceiving the world to be meaningless, infact I don't perceive the world as meaningless...
If so then you are not agnostic. You are what Big_John is, which is apathetic atheists. You just don't care weather god exists or not. You don't even want to deal with that. accept accept reality as it is rationally concivable: total and obsolete randomness and meaningless until you give it your own individual meaning.
Big_John
05-14-2005, 21:31
Know what I mean?
of course not, adrian. i never know what you mean. http://www.mazeguy.net/expressive/spin.gif
i will say that while i don't care if god exists, i do care whether other people believe such, mainly for practical reasons.
Alexander the Pretty Good
05-14-2005, 21:42
~:eek: The Bhuddists are winning!
~:cool:
Proletariat
05-14-2005, 21:49
Funny, that goes for me too, only I feel I am forced to care because religion is still such a big deal in today's world.
Me three, but I still think we're better off with the majority of people at least trying to follow things like the Ten Commandments or Pillars or whatever.
Adrian II
05-14-2005, 21:58
Fortuitous development. Bebekung Mampa Hoonanooga has taken decisive lead in poll.
:kiss2::sultan::kiss2:
Adrian II
05-14-2005, 21:59
Me three, but I still think we're better off with the majority of people at least trying to follow things like the Ten Commandments or Pillars or whatever.Who says they do, oh Straussian Amazone?
If so then you are not agnostic. You are what Big_John is, which is apathetic atheists. You just don't care weather god exists or not. You don't even want to deal with that. accept accept reality as it is rationally concivable: total and obsolete randomness and meaningless until you give it your own individual meaning.
That's "whether".
Templar Knight
05-14-2005, 23:15
I do believe in God - but not some old guy on a cloud - more of a creative force. And as you know i'm not religious.
Hurin_Rules
05-14-2005, 23:18
I don't believe in any God or gods.
I believe that the closest we humans will ever come to contemplating the divine is seeing Anna Kournikova's ass.
How did you determine that God possess these characteristics? I for one find them quite irreconcilable. Take for one God's supposed omnipotence, omniscience and benevolence (or more typically called his perfect goodness IIRC). Then the Argument from Evil is quite easy to make.
(1) If God exists then he is omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good.
(2) If God were omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good then the world would not contain evil.
(3) The world contains evil.
Therefore:
(4) It is not the case that God exists.
Sounds really lame but he/she/it is God...I cannot judge God, not can I put God into a box...faith is required. I cannot rationalize it properly, I believe perhaps foolishly but I nevertheless believe :help:
Adrian II
05-14-2005, 23:23
Sounds really lame but he/she/it is God...I cannot judge God, not can I put God into a box...faith is required. I cannot rationalize it properly, I believe perhaps foolishly but I nevertheless believe :help:Hurin Roolz.
*Slaps God in a box*
Duke Malcolm
05-14-2005, 23:48
I don't see how the existence of evil proves the lack of existence of God...
God is a British man. From the borders, or somewhere in Lothian, and speaks RP, but with a slight Edinburgh/borders accent
Big_John
05-14-2005, 23:49
hey uh... i got your lord here.. where you want it?
https://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y9/dem0819/giab.jpg
Kaiser of Arabia
05-15-2005, 00:00
The poll itself doesn't specify which religion. It simply asks weather you beleave in a god or not.
The Christisn thing was just an assumption I made about who might have voted, it's irrelevent to the poll!
I'm not god yet. ~;)
Remember, if you are God them I am UBERGOD!
Btw I voted yes because I'm a good person and catholic. So ha.
Skomatth
05-15-2005, 00:01
Skomatth, does one have to deterime the characteristics of a thing to believe in it? (not a rhtorical question, btw)
other than that, how do you justify (2) and (3)? why would "the world" be deviod of evil if such a god existed? and how do you know "evil" exists in the world?
Big_John I take it that you mean "believe" as "believe to exist", else I don't see any other meaningful connotation. To believe in a god one does not have to determine the characteristics of it, merely the characteristic of existence. People do this in many different ways, using a variety of arguments- cosmological, ontological personal etc. If one asserts a characteristic beyond existence, there must be a reason to believe it, or I can make an assertion exactly contrary to yours and it will be equally justified. We can also rule out certain characteristics of God if they lead to a false conclusion.
I of course did not come up with the argument from evil; it is just a basic example of how to counter ah_dut's assertions. "Evil" and "good" come from the Christian connotations. (2) is justified thusly: If God is perfectly good, He
wants the best for mankind. If He is all-knowing, he knows exactly how to bring about the best for mankind. If He is all-powerful, He is able to bring about the best for mankind. It is easy to see that evil exists in the world if one takes evil to mean: "contrary to the will of a Christian God".
agnostic vote here, so no god, but that doesnt say much.
I do not believe in God and am an atheist. The belief in God, in my opinion, is self deceiving.
Byzantine Prince
05-15-2005, 01:07
What I find so interesting is that the votes are always in the 50/50 range which suggests a sharp decline from the presurposed 90% Christian community of the Western world.
Of ocurse most of us are also in the youth sector so it might take a while before the ratio trully get's to the 50/50 range.
:devilish: Long like our ANTI-CHRIST generation! :devilish:
Kaiser of Arabia
05-15-2005, 01:26
What I find so interesting is that the votes are always in the 50/50 range which suggests a sharp decline from the presurposed 90% Christian community of the Western world.
Of ocurse most of us are also in the youth sector so it might take a while before the ratio trully get's to the 50/50 range.
:devilish: Long like our ANTI-CHRIST generation! :devilish:
Once I get my AK I plan to even that out. :hanged:
PanzerJaeger
05-15-2005, 01:32
I cannot judge God, not can I put God into a box...faith is required.
Words of wisdom.
Such fools some people are to presume they know what God should be and what (s)he should do.
That applies to priests and athiests alike..
You either feel the presence of something more than the physical world or you do not, in which case youre most certainly going to hell. (:tongue2:)
Once I get my AK I plan to even that out. :hanged:
....
Kaiser of Arabia
05-15-2005, 01:49
,,,
Your such a good Christian you would want to kill people on a mass scale simply because people are not Christian. Remind me again why we are against Islamic extremists again?
I forget.
Kaiser of Arabia
05-15-2005, 01:53
heh you do realize i wasn't serious.
Just a well placed counter to BP
Byzantine Prince
05-15-2005, 01:58
Hey I would love to meet the devil.
I bet you he's a lot like the ancient greek god Pan. In fact he IS the god Pan, who penetrated the Christian religion somehow just like Santa!
http://img226.echo.cx/img226/4549/n590540sx.jpg
Hehe it's pretty unbeleavable this small deity from the mountains became the most terrifying being in the biggest religion the world has ever seen.
Kaiser of Arabia
05-15-2005, 02:02
I throw out your reality and replace it with my own.
Hey I would love to meet the devil.
I bet you he's a lot like the ancient greek god Pan. In fact he IS the god Pan, who penetrated the Christian religion somehow just like Santa!
http://img226.echo.cx/img226/4549/n590540sx.jpg
Hehe it's pretty unbeleavable this small deity from the mountains became the most terrifying being in the biggest religion the world has ever seen.
"unbelievable".
He is also the Celtic god Cernunnos, who was at least six times more kickass than Pan. He is also the "snake" because of the popularity of snake cults around Egypt and Judaea at the time, which threatened to overthrow the religion in place.
Just a well placed counter to BP
Well-placed?
Gawain of Orkeny
05-15-2005, 02:35
You just don't care weather god exists
Who is this weather god Thor? And why do you want the BE to Leave ~D Its believe. Im a lousy speller but I cant take these two over and over. ~;)
Also the questin posed depends a lot on what the meaning of believe is. To belive something can mean thats what you think is so or it can also mean that which you know is true. Their not quite the same. I believe there is a god. But who or what that is is beyond me. If you ask me am I sure for certain theres a god Id have to say no. So in what manner is this question posed? That will have a big effect on the results of this poll and may explain why so many people vote no even though they are Christains. Or at least claim to be.
Byzantine Prince
05-15-2005, 04:07
Who is this weather god Thor? And why do you want the BE to Leave ~D Its believe. Im a lousy speller but I cant take these two over and over. ~;)
Aren't you a little old to be making childish points like this? ~;)
So in what manner is this question posed? That will have a big effect on the results of this poll and may explain why so many people vote no even though they are Christains. Or at least claim to be.
It is posed as it is written my senior friend. Do you believe in god? If you believe he exists you check "YES" if not then "NO". It's not too hard is it? ~D
KukriKhan
05-15-2005, 04:12
Define 'god'.
Please.
Wanna vote, but can't 'til you do.
bmolsson
05-15-2005, 04:39
I don't believe in God. If he exist, he doesn't deserve to be believed in........
DisruptorX
05-15-2005, 04:41
I can't answer either option. Every religion in Earth is painfully and blatantly nonsense, but that doesn't mean there isn't someting that mankind might view as a god.
I'm not really an atheist, but I am not religious, it isn't a topic I think about in my daily life.
Byzantine Prince
05-15-2005, 04:45
Define 'god'.
Please.
Wanna vote, but can't 'til you do.
god [god]
n (plural gods)
1. supernatural being: one of a group of supernatural male beings in some religions, each of which is worshiped as the personification or controller of some aspect of the universe
Uesugi Kenshin
05-15-2005, 06:17
NO!
Anyway, beyond my enthusiasm for Atheism it seems that more people do not believe than do believe. 26 to 22 at the moment. Hurray for Atheism!
Yes I do.
25 yes, 26 no
more people voted yes than I expected.
To all atheists: I don't mind you not believing in god, but try not to isult people who do.
R'as al Ghul
05-15-2005, 10:55
Vote for NO.
I don't believe in God(s).
There's no reason to.
No problems with people that do, though.
But I guess a little bit of faith has a place in Science, too.
@Byzantine Prince:
The topic on Agnosticism vs. Atheism is an exhausted topic on these boards. At least for the older members. There were several threads that discussed this around the same time I made this poll: What are your Beliefs? (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=26823) (NB: the change of forum engine has resulted in some of my formatting not working).
Some of the other threads are linked into my summary (post #2 in the above thread).
[edit]: It seems like the links I mention above has URLs to the old forum and hence are not working properly. They do however exist somewhere on this new version of the forum but I can't remember who posted them or when they were first posted.
And… you know what beleave means? (not believe)
Yes, I do. In every aspect.
Atheists seem to be the ones who always look down on others, or is it just that they know they´re wrong and feel they have to defend themselves by mentioning their atheism almost everywhere. Isn´t it enough that I have to feel almost personally attacked by films like the life of Brian? It´s often the same people who tell us to have respect for other people´s believes and thoughts and then start to make fun of jesus, the bible and other things.
Not only crusades can hurt other people, words can do that, too.
And btw, no, I´m not catholic. ~;)
I don´t mind if you are atheists, buddhist, maoist, islamic, catholic, protestant etc., but as long as I don´t make fun of you for what you believe(even if you believe in nothing), please don´t make fun of me for what I believe. :bow:
Idomeneas
05-15-2005, 14:59
Yes, I do. In every aspect.
Atheists seem to be the ones who always look down on others, or is it just that they know they´re wrong and feel they have to defend themselves by mentioning their atheism almost everywhere. Isn´t it enough that I have to feel almost personally attacked by films like the life of Brian? It´s often the same people who tell us to have respect for other people´s believes and thoughts and then start to make fun of jesus, the bible and other things.
Not only crusades can hurt other people, words can do that, too.
And btw, no, I´m not catholic. ~;)
I don´t mind if you are atheists, buddhist, maoist, islamic, catholic, protestant etc., but as long as I don´t make fun of you for what you believe(even if you believe in nothing), please don´t make fun of me for what I believe. :bow:
sorry but life of Brian rocks IMO
Adrian II
05-15-2005, 15:09
To all atheists: I don't mind you not believing in god, but try not to isult people who do.That's a fine line we're walking here, Drisos. Some members call some of my ideas absurd and they have every right to do so. I have the same right with regard to other peoples' ideas. I have every right to state that some religious notions look to me like aviation experiments that have long been overtaken by social and scientific progress.
On the other hand, I stated above that I take religion seriously because so many other people on this earth do. And I do. I have many times defended my view that the Bible, the Quran and other 'holy' books are worth reading and respecting in their own right, even though I do not regard them as sources of revealed truths. I have shown that I am more than superficially interested in Christian theology and in Christian writers, from Mauriac through Lewis, and I have made it clear in a seemingly endless series of 'Pope threads' that I don't share the common anti-Church view on Aids prevention in Africa.
But I' m not a Christian and I have a right to say and demonstrate why and in what ways Christianity looks absurd to me. Christians have the right to say (as a friend of mine once did) that my world view reminds them of an ant colony that reproduces itself without an apparent higher motive or aim. It made me smile, and it made me understand him a little bit more. That's the upside to such discussions. We should be able to write such things about each other, mostly in jest, and thereby reveal ourselves and get a better understanding.
That's why you'll always find me on your side in a 'Christianity sux' thread.
sorry but life of Brian rocks IMO
I have to say that as a film it´s pretty funny, but only if I ignore who they´re making fun of.
Idomeneas
05-15-2005, 18:53
I have to say that as a film it´s pretty funny, but only if I ignore who they´re making fun of.
I believe that there must be no limits to satyric plays. Nobody has to see something that IHO insult his beliefs.
Gawain of Orkeny
05-15-2005, 19:03
I think if your religous the life of brian is even funnier to you. I know it cracked me up. If you cant laugh at yourself or your own beliefs you have no real sense of humor.
ICantSpellDawg
05-15-2005, 19:14
i honestly did not like that movie
and i am a huge python fan
to each his own (certain parts were alright; like the "what have the romans done" bit)
Crazed Rabbit
05-15-2005, 19:15
I believe.
Somehow, I find it implausible to assume humans somehow evolved from innert objects. But I guess spontaneous generation still has its proponents, even 100 years after Pasteur...
But not only that, I have faith in the one, everlasting God who created me.
Crazed Rabbit
ICantSpellDawg
05-15-2005, 19:17
Christians have the right to say (as a friend of mine once did) that my world view reminds them of an ant colony that reproduces itself without an apparent higher motive or aim. It made me smile, and it made me understand him a little bit more.
ive used that one before
fair post, all in all - and i understand where you are coming from
Byzantine Prince
05-15-2005, 19:20
Let's hear some creation theories from our atheist members. Here's mine:
I believe we were created by the one, the everlasting whirlwind of chaotic randomness.
LittleGrizzly
05-15-2005, 23:02
didn't expect that, 10 more no's than yes's
Does playing "God" in Total War count ~D
Uesugi Kenshin
05-16-2005, 03:20
Spontaneous creation. Some life had to come after unlife, it was just a matter of time before single celled ortganisms poopped into existence and then evolved into chemical meat bags, such as us.
It's all random.
The physical laws here on earth led to the chemical laws. The chemical laws led to biological laws ("life"). The biological laws led to societal laws.
Physics-->Chemistry-->Biology-->Society-->?
What's next? "The Matrix"? Maybe.... The point is, that's evolution to you. ~:)
bmolsson
05-16-2005, 08:22
I always wondered, how can anyone that believe in God ever be insulted over his belief ?? Frankly speaking, I really strong belief would make any attempt to mock it impossible.......
King Henry V
05-16-2005, 10:35
I believe in one omniscient, benevolent but not omnipotent Lord, and that all evil in the world stems from the devil. I believe in His Son, Our Saviour Jesus Christ and in the Holy Spirit. I believe that God has helped me on several occasions.
Our planet has a very special position. It is in that thin strip of the solar system where life is actually possible, and it is a wonder that we have not been destroyed by meteorites. If the stars created everything, the what created the stars? Not even the greatest scientists know that.
Religion is the basis of our laws. It is the basis of our ideas of good and evil, right and wrong. Naturally Man himself has manipulated religion to his advantage, but is that not Man's fault instead of religion?
I believe that atheism is root of the degeneration of modern society. It is the root of yobbism, of crime, of promiscuity, of the increasing number of single mothers and of the lack of morality. The world has lost its sense of right and wrong.The Pope is right: the best way to prevent AIDS is sexual abstenance.
Al Khalifah
05-16-2005, 10:52
God made the big-bang, therefore God made everything.
So evolution and universe expansion are true, but so is Genesis. Judgement day will come when the universe contracts again (assuming that the universe will contract and that it will not stagnate or continue to expand indefinately depending on the Hubbel constant).
Scientific discovery doesn't have to disprove God, it only enhances his reputation that so many miracles could occur out of random chance. Does that make everyone happy?
Ja'chyra
05-16-2005, 11:14
God made the big-bang, therefore God made everything.
So where did God come from?
Personally I don't believe but mainly because I don't care. If believing in God helps you that's fine with me, just don't try to force it on me and we'll get along fine.
Meneldil
05-16-2005, 11:38
I don't believe in God and I don't like biggots (Christian, Jew and Muslims biggots), though I enjoyed reading the Bible and the Koran.
King Edward
05-16-2005, 11:44
I believe.
Somehow, I find it implausible to assume humans somehow evolved from innert objects. But I guess spontaneous generation still has its proponents, even 100 years after Pasteur...
But not only that, I have faith in the one, everlasting God who created me.
Crazed Rabbit
You want to see the activity levels of some people in my office, its more than plausable that Humans evolved form Innert objects ~D
On topic i myself do not believe in god but that doesnt mean my beliefs are right.........
To be honest religion has no real influence on my life. I was Christened Roman catholic as my grand mother was irish and very devout. But i dont really think about it and i dont really talk about it so it doesn't affect me.
What i do beleive is that people are free to beleive in wha they wish and if they derive some form of comfort from this then it cannot be a bad thing.
Duke Malcolm
05-16-2005, 11:47
It's all random.
The physical laws here on earth led to the chemical laws. The chemical laws led to biological laws ("life"). The biological laws led to societal laws.
Physics-->Chemistry-->Biology-->Society-->?
What's next? "The Matrix"? Maybe.... The point is, that's evolution to you. ~:)
A number of revered, and esteemed astrophysicists have shown that these laws are so finely-tuned (should they be in the slightest bit different, this wouldn't be here), that it cannot be random, and that there must be/have been a Creator. A number of these astrophysicists have converted from athiesm/agnosticism following this discovery/reasoning.
On the other hand, however; a number of equally revered, and esteemed astrophysicists have theorised that there is this theoretical multiverse, which contains an infinite number of universes, each with different laws,then the existence of our universe is an inevitability. Since there is no proof of a multiverse, then we have no way of knowing if the theory is true.
So, you can see, that the laws have not got the experts any where in the great theological debate.
bmolsson
05-16-2005, 12:04
So where did God come from?
Sigh... From Gods mom of course... Everyone knows that.... ~:grouphug:
Ja'chyra
05-16-2005, 12:24
Sigh... From Gods mom of course... Everyone knows that.... ~:grouphug:
So where did................nah, nevermind :dizzy2: ~D
There has to be something.
Adrian II
05-16-2005, 12:46
There has to be something.Coffee --> comp screen.
Don't do that, Frag! ~D
Coffee --> comp screen.
Don't do that, Frag! ~D
Just when I was going to get philosophical that cursed lama from rotterdam rains on my parade. Begone heathen for I will smite thee.
Adrian II
05-16-2005, 13:05
Just when I was going to get philosophical that cursed lama from rotterdam rains on my parade. Begone heathen for I will smite thee.The smiting on this web site is getting out of hand lately. I've been smitted, smoten and smuttered at least three times this week.
:dizzy2:
The smiting on this web site is getting out of hand lately. I've been smitted, smoten and smuttered at least three times this week.
:dizzy2:
Ahhh you got the tripple s huh? Well let me tell you, no means no, even in the TMF chatrooms.
pervert.
Adrian II
05-16-2005, 13:15
'Yays' top 'nays' by 39:28. Bebekung Mampa Hoonanooga withdraw from world till next avatar.
:kiss2::sultan::kiss2:
'Yays' top 'nays' by 39:28. Bebekung Mampa Hoonanooga withdraw from world till next avatar.
:kiss2::sultan::kiss2:
Damn you. Just when I had a witty reply you edit the post :furious3:
Adrian II
05-16-2005, 13:24
Damn you. Just when I had a witty reply you edit the post :furious3:F**** again! ~D
A number of revered, and esteemed astrophysicists have shown that these laws are so finely-tuned (should they be in the slightest bit different, this wouldn't be here), that it cannot be random, and that there must be/have been a Creator. A number of these astrophysicists have converted from athiesm/agnosticism following this discovery/reasoning.
On the other hand, however; a number of equally revered, and esteemed astrophysicists have theorised that there is this theoretical multiverse, which contains an infinite number of universes, each with different laws,then the existence of our universe is an inevitability. Since there is no proof of a multiverse, then we have no way of knowing if the theory is true.
So, you can see, that the laws have not got the experts any where in the great theological debate. Those are highly illogical points, sorry.
1) If there were "intelligent designs", then you would have "life" or other creatures in other planets.
2) Billions of years of evolution. That's a shade long for something intelligent. Why not spontaneous creation? Because evolution is random as well as mutation.
3) All these energy and matter in the whole universe just to create "life" in (what I usually refer to as) a 'ball of nothing' (nee' earth). The earth is so tiny, calling it a blip is an astounding exaggeration. So your god is ineffiecient too? ("Omnipotent, Omniscient, Benevolent" and 'ineffiecient' lol ~;) Excellent!).
Since there is no proof of a multiverse, then we have no way of knowing if the theory is true. There's no proof of god either. Watch, people refer to him as human-shaped. That's because he's patterned to man's likeness as imagined by people.
A number of revered, and esteemed astrophysicists have shown that these laws are so finely-tuned (should they be in the slightest bit different, this wouldn't be here), that it cannot be random, and that there must be/have been a Creator. Exactly, that's why it is random. The earth is full of freaks. It's all an accident if you will. Random collision of molecules, random chemical reactions fueled by the sun. Life evolved over billions of years.
Can you win a lottery in 50 years if you buy 10 tickets a day? Likely not. If anybody can win a lottery instantly, then it's not random. Fact is, it is random.
If life happened spontaneously, then call me converted, but no, it had to take billions of years in a little planet called earth that is insignicant compared to the rest of the universe. That's random!
~:) :charge:
Don Corleone
05-16-2005, 14:32
Well, I don't know if anybody has made this point, but I don't have the time or the inclination to read through 4 pages of "yes there is", "no there isn't", although the Frag & Aid show is entertaining, as always.
But for strictly selfish reasons, you should find a way to come to grips with a higher being. I'm going to make the Soren Kirkegaard argument. There's only four possible scenarios:
1) There's no God and you're an atheist
2) There's no God but you believed there was
3) There is a God, but you were an atheist.
4) There is a God, and you believed in him.
Of all possible outcomes, only 1 is positive. If you're an atheist, you'll either never know you're right, or you're going to have a lot of explaining to do. If you're a believer, you'll either never know you were wrong, or you're on the good foot coming into the after life.
Al Khalifah
05-16-2005, 14:50
What'd be really funny would be if there was an afterlife, but no-one got the right religion... so everyone went to hell apart from that insane guy from Aliens.
What'd be really funny would be if there was an afterlife, but no-one got the right religion... so everyone went to hell apart from that insane guy from Aliens.
That reminds me of a show by rowan atkinson, where he plays the devil. He calls for the christians: 'sorry the jews were right' ~D
Al Khalifah
05-16-2005, 14:58
I'd be fuming if the scientologists were right in the end. Eternal damnation would kind of lose its bad side in such a heaven.
Don Corleone
05-16-2005, 15:07
I'm not sure what Scientoligists believe in for an afterlife. And this is why I think you're judged by your own conscience. That's not the same thing as moral relativisim, because in that, as long as you can rationalize your behaviors, they're not immoral. I'm talking about what you held to be right & wrong in your heart of hearts. I cannot imagine a God with any sort of mercy or understanding acting in any other way.
Duke Malcolm
05-16-2005, 15:07
Those are highly illogical points, sorry.
Not points, facts.
1) If there were "intelligent designs", then you would have "life" or other creatures in other planets.
2) Billions of years of evolution. That's a shade long for something intelligent. Why not spontaneous creation? Because evolution is random as well as mutation.
3) All these energy and matter in the whole universe just to create "life" in (what I usually refer to as) a 'ball of nothing' (nee' earth). The earth is so tiny, calling it a blip is an astounding exaggeration. So your god is ineffiecient too? ("Omnipotent, Omniscient, Benevolent" and 'ineffiecient' lol ~;) Excellent!).
You just contradicted yourself here. Read through points one and three...
There's no proof of god either. Watch, people refer to him as human-shaped. That's because he's patterned to man's likeness as imagined by people.
Read Genesis, or perhaps the whole pentateuch, it all makes good reading. God created man in His own image.
Exactly, that's why it is random. The earth is full of freaks. It's all an accident if you will. Random collision of molecules, random chemical reactions fueled by the sun. Life evolved over billions of years.
Can you win a lottery in 50 years if you buy 10 tickets a day? Likely not. If anybody can win a lottery instantly, then it's not random. Fact is, it is random.
If life happened spontaneously, then call me converted, but no, it had to take billions of years in a little planet called earth that is insignicant compared to the rest of the universe. That's random!
Life may have evolved (note that I am an agnostic, by-the-by) but the laws of science are so precise, that should any one of them have been different, then this universe would not exist. So it can't be random unless there is a multiverse, for which there is as much proof as God. Only then shall the chemical reactions and laws of science be random.
:charge: :duel:
Don Corleone
05-16-2005, 15:16
Quietus,
Where did anyone in this thread hold to a terra-centric universe? Of course intelligent life could (and probably does) exist on other planets. Assuming they were advanced enough to be capable of inter-stellar travel, they almost certainly would observe our communications prior to an initial contact, and almost certainly would (rightfully) conclude that the experience would generate global termoil. We're simply not ready for that level of eye-opening. As much as I thought they were the coolest, I cannot believe a species like the Klingons would ever come about... that's a LOT of effort, energy & resources spent, just to go find new people to kill. This is why I don't believe in all of this 'abduction' business, I believe we're under quarantine.
Al Khalifah
05-16-2005, 15:24
I'm not sure what Scientoligists believe in for an afterlife. And this is why I think you're judged by your own conscience. That's not the same thing as moral relativisim, because in that, as long as you can rationalize your behaviors, they're not immoral. I'm talking about what you held to be right & wrong in your heart of hearts. I cannot imagine a God with any sort of mercy or understanding acting in any other way.
But then a lot of people who are really good people but judge themselves by too high standards wouldn't be good enough for heaven. For example "I saved 1000 people from burning buildings but there was one little girl I couldn't save and I'll blame myself forever"...
Also you'll have people with really bad moral codes going to paradise. Some people are really really bad people through and through. These people would be rewarded over people who do bad deads occasionally but know they've done wrong.
Personally I quite like the Grim Fandango idea of an afterlife. Anyone who's played the game must surely agree. "The Gate opens, the Gate closes, it does not help."
LittleGrizzly
05-16-2005, 15:49
but the laws of science are so precise, that should any one of them have been different, then this universe would not exist. So it can't be random unless there is a multiverse,
i don't understand how the laws of science being precise can't be random without a multiverse ?
Not points, facts. Where? Give something concrete, please.
You just contradicted yourself here. Read through points one and three... Billions of years of evolution vs. Spontaneous creation in a flash. As a human being that is undeniably smart, which do you prefer? If god made that choice of 'billions of years of evolution' over spontaneous creation. Is he being petty or inefficient? There was no plan, it's random.
Read Genesis, or perhaps the whole pentateuch, it all makes good reading. God created man in His own image. Every single feature of our body resulted from mutation (which is random), there no outright plan or formula. Our features evolved over time, just like the chicken's features evolved over time or any other creature in this planet, even a virus, which by the way is NOT living.
Whichever mutation is favored in an environment is selected for to survive and reproduce, that's all. If trees in a certain island produce only tough seed that is bird food, those who have large enough beaks will strive, those will smaller beaks will be outcompeted and eventually wither.
God did not plan that. That's just evolution and mutation which are both random. Now, if twenty years from now, those trees were all burned out by an accidental lightning and subsequent fire. Then smaller plants that replaced those trees have small seeds that are too tiny to be picked by large beaks. Guess who will strive then? The bird with beaks that can pick.
God has nothing to do with it at all. Just because we are currently at the top of the food chain doesn't mean we will stay there. The dinosaurs used to be the main predators too. Where are they now? Certainly, god didn't create those beast in his image.
Life may have evolved (note that I am an agnostic, by-the-by) but the laws of science are so precise, that should any one of them have been different, then this universe would not exist. So it can't be random unless there is a multiverse, for which there is as much proof as God. Only then shall the chemical reactions and laws of science be random.
:charge: :duel: What I meant by random is by billions of years of chemical reaction. There's a lot of energy from the sun driving all these chemical reactions. There's no blueprint from the start. We're just an anomaly. An aberration. Evolution is `winging-it`.
:charge:
That reminds me of a show by rowan atkinson, where he plays the devil. He calls for the christians: 'sorry the jews were right' ~D
That was on South Park once. God's chosen religion was Mormonism.
One can also look at the issue of god's existence from a sociological and historical perspective. Religions, as expressions of a culture's norms and beliefs, were undoubtedly shaped after a very long time. However, this leaves every separate culture on the planet with their own Gods and their own forms of orthodoxy. Religions like Islam, Christianity and Judaism are illegitimate in the sense that they do not help reinforce cultural norms by reiterating the beliefs, values and morals of the culture; rather, they are culturally subversive and seek to create their own values and morals. This is ironically another case of creation versus evolution - Paganism evolved, Monotheism was created.
..I know I had a point when I started this rant, but it's gone now..
Quietus,
Where did anyone in this thread hold to a terra-centric universe? Of course intelligent life could (and probably does) exist on other planets. Assuming they were advanced enough to be capable of inter-stellar travel, they almost certainly would observe our communications prior to an initial contact, and almost certainly would (rightfully) conclude that the experience would generate global termoil. We're simply not ready for that level of eye-opening. As much as I thought they were the coolest, I cannot believe a species like the Klingons would ever come about... that's a LOT of effort, energy & resources spent, just to go find new people to kill. This is why I don't believe in all of this 'abduction' business, I believe we're under quarantine. I personally believe there are other "living" creatures in other pockets of the universe. however, I do not believe they are anything like use. Our line of evolution is unique and so will their evolution. Heck, not even carbon-based.
Do you know what "intelligent design" means? It means a 'God' designed everything from the start and he knows the final product, which is US. Now that is the dumbest, most ridiculous thing I've ever heard.
A being that powerful will opt for spontaneous creation instead. But no, there are no spontaneous creation because there is no god. As a lowly human being, do you use a remote control or do you stand up all the time? snail-mail or e-mail?
What's the purpose of Mars? Venus, Mercury, Pluto? 8 out of 9 in our solar system have no life whatsoever. Where's the "intelligent design"?
Don Corleone
05-16-2005, 16:19
I think you're vastly oversimplifying, and there's no need to belittle people who don't subscribe to your theories 100%. Okay, I'm done with this conversation... clearly Quietus already has all the answers and anyone who doesn't agree is ridiculous :dizzy2:
I think you're vastly oversimplifying, and there's no need to belittle people who don't subscribe to your theories 100%. Okay, I'm done with this conversation... clearly Quietus already has all the answers and anyone who doesn't agree is ridiculous :dizzy2:Don Corleone, no, I'm calling the "intelligent design" term (which is the by-word of the moment) ridiculous. Perhaps, you'd like to google it.
No, no, I'm not calling you. ~:)
Duke Malcolm
05-16-2005, 16:33
Where? Give something concrete, please.
That many astrophysicists believe that there is a Creator, because they believe the laws are so "finely-tuned", that they cannot simply be random.
or
that there is not a Creator, and that there are an infinite number of universes each with different laws, so the existence of this universe is inevitable.
And that there is as much proof for a multiverse, or the lack of God, as there is for an abundance of God
Billions of years of evolution vs. Spontaneous creation in a flash. As a human being that is undeniably smart, which do you prefer? If god made that choice of 'billions of years of evolution' over spontaneous creation. Is he being petty or inefficient? There was no plan, it's random.
To be honest, I prefer Spontaneous creation. I don't like to think that my ancestors used to be apes and lived up trees...
Is there not also the possibility that God created the laws of science, to create the universe as he sees fit? He started the ball rolling, and now it is in motion until it comes to his chosen design? Maybe to God, billions of years pass quickly...
Every single feature of our body resulted from mutation (which is random), there no outright plan or formula. Our features evolved over time, just like the chicken's features evolved over time or any other creature in this planet, even a virus, which by the way is NOT living.
Whichever mutation is favored in an environment is selected for to survive and reproduce, that's all. If trees in a certain island produce only tough seed that is bird food, those who have large enough beaks will strive, those will smaller beaks will be outcompeted and eventually wither.
God did not plan that. That's just evolution and mutation which are both random. Now, if twenty years from now, those trees were all burned out by an accidental lightning and subsequent fire. Then smaller plants that replaced those trees have small seeds that are too tiny to be picked by large beaks. Guess who will strive then? The bird with beaks that can pick.
God has nothing to do with it at all. Just because we are currently at the top of the food chain doesn't mean we will stay there. The dinosaurs used to be the main predators too. Where are they now? Certainly, god didn't create those beast in his image.
No, only man was created in his own image. As I said, read Genesis. The theory of evolution still has not been fully proven, by-the-by. Could it also not be that evolution is God's way of finding the best creature. Perhaps God creates a change whenever He feeld one is necessary, perhaps He kills of species which he doesn't like because they are not suited.
What I meant by random is by billions of years of chemical reaction. There's a lot of energy from the sun driving all these chemical reactions. There's no blueprint from the start. We're just an anomaly. An aberration. Evolution is `winging-it`.
Chemical reactions are not necessarily random, so billions of years' worth of chemical reaction are not necessarily random either.
That many astrophysicists believe that there is a Creator, because they believe the laws are so "finely-tuned", that they cannot simply be random.
or
that there is not a Creator, and that there are an infinite number of universes each with different laws, so the existence of this universe is inevitable.
And that there is as much proof for a multiverse, or the lack of God, as there is for an abundance of God It's random because molecules collide randomly.
To be honest, I prefer Spontaneous creation. I don't like to think that my ancestors used to be apes and lived up trees...
Is there not also the possibility that God created the laws of science, to create the universe as he sees fit? He started the ball rolling, and now it is in motion until it comes to his chosen design? The universe is huge and expanding, the earth is too tiny to be God's plan all along.
Maybe to God, billions of years pass quickly... You're giving human characteristics to god. Even the way human senses. ~:)
No, only man was created in his own image. No. Every part of our body mutated randomly and evolved slowly.
As I said, read Genesis. The theory of evolution still has not been fully proven, by-the-by. It's already proven genetically.
Could it also not be that evolution is God's way of finding the best creature. Survival of the fittest but god has nothing to do with it.
Perhaps God creates a change whenever He feeld one is necessary, perhaps He kills of species which he doesn't like because they are not suited. All the forces around us are already present. There's no divine hand. If you throw an object in the air, it will keep on moving, unless it is acted upon by another force which is in our instance is gravity.
Chemical reactions are not necessarily random, so billions of years' worth of chemical reaction are not necessarily random either. Different molecules collide randomly in nature. There's no special collision. ~:)
Hurin_Rules
05-16-2005, 16:57
Yaaay atheists. This must be one of the few times we're in the majority. Good to be around so many fellow heathens!
~:grouphug:
Duke Malcolm
05-16-2005, 17:03
Right-ho, first off, I don't know where you get half of the stuff you are replying to, such as the forces being present, the molecules colliding, Earth being too tiny, and giving God human characteristics.
Anyhoo, Molecules may appear to collide randomly, but are guided by the endless laws, such as the infamous Laws of Motion, the theories of General and Special relativity (which also include the Laws of Gravity). If one does physics, and sees the equations, and how everything fits together, then it can hardly be sheer randomness that produced this universe. There surely must be either an inevitable combination produced within the multiverse, or a finely-tuned by a Creator. We can predict the motion of molecules, disproving their random movements.
I don't know what that is about a "special collision", and I don't see how molecules appearing to collide randomly has anything to do with the revelations in astrophysics I have pointed out.
And also, it is a popular scientific belief that the survival of the fittest theory is also wrong. Read The Selfish Gene for further information.
Right-ho, first off, I don't know where you get half of the stuff you are replying to, such as the forces being present, the molecules colliding, Earth being too tiny, and giving God human characteristics. Which part are you unsure of?
Anyhoo, Molecules may appear to collide randomly, but are guided by the endless laws, such as the infamous Laws of Motion, the theories of General and Special relativity (which also include the Laws of Gravity). If one does physics, and sees the equations, and how everything fits together, then it can hardly be sheer randomness that produced this universe. That's not what I meant. I meant, all molecules do collide randomly. Elements collide randomly.
There surely must be either an inevitable combination produced within the multiverse, or a finely-tuned by a Creator. We can predict the motion of molecules, disproving their random movements. What do you mean by multiverse? You have a large number of mass or elements. It's random.
I don't know what that is about a "special collision", and I don't see how molecules appearing to collide randomly has anything to do with the revelations in astrophysics I have pointed out. Well, "life" as we know it is just a sophiticated set of chemical reaction that has built up over time. If you want to be specific with these revelations, feel free. All I know is elements and molecules collide randomly. Collision is different from binding by the way, if that's what you mean.
And also, it is a popular scientific belief that the survival of the fittest theory is also wrong. Read The Selfish Gene for further information. Sorry, that's already a mistake. Evolution and survival of the fittest are sound principles. We are the greatest proof to this, we already own the earth!
Can you tell me what the "Selfish Gene" is saying in short?
PanzerJaeger
05-16-2005, 17:52
Yaaay atheists. This must be one of the few times we're in the majority. Good to be around so many fellow heathens!
Was there ever any doubt?
Exactly my thoughts about Molecules, Malcolm.
There´s not much in science that seems to be random and even if there is, maybe we just didn´t find the right law. 2000 years ago there was not as much scientific knowldge as today, but nobody said "Everything is random and that proves there is no god". Just because we can´t explain something doesn´t mean there is no explanation at all.
Byzantine Prince
05-16-2005, 18:37
A number of revered, and esteemed astrophysicists have shown that these laws are so finely-tuned (should they be in the slightest bit different, this wouldn't be here), that it cannot be random, and that there must be/have been a Creator.
Ah yes, and why does it have to be a creator?
Why are these astrophysicists so arogant as to think they figured everything out and everything is in perfect order?
Duke Malcolm
05-16-2005, 18:38
Which part are you unsure of?
When you say that the Earth is tiny. I nkow that, everyone know that. But it may just be one small part of the whole. One small part of God's plan.
That's not what I meant. I meant, all molecules do collide randomly. Elements collide randomly.
Firstly, molecules are not elements. But nevertheless, they do not collide randomly. They may appear to collide randomly, but they follow the laws of science.
What do you mean by multiverse? You have a large number of mass or elements. It's random.
Sorry, perhaps I should have explained earlier. The theoretical multiverse is another sort of univers, which theoretically contains an infinite number on universes (or a very very very very very very large number of them, anyway), and each universed therein has different laws of science (e.g. here, we have Potential energy = Mass * Gravity * squared Height, whereas another universe in the multiverse may have PE = M/2 * H * square root of gravity)
Sorry, that's already a mistake. Evolution and survival of the fittest are sound principles. We are the greatest proof to this, we already own the earth!
Can you tell me what the "Selfish Gene" is saying in short?
It is similar to survival of the fittest, and survival of the most well adapted. It is still evolution, but not the more Darwinian one of survival of the fittest. Basically, it says that everybodies genes (down to the allele) try to have themselves continued on. The weaker genes do bad things, such as kill the host, the person, or stop them having children so that the gene doesn't continue (which is one of the reasons sodomy couldn't be genetic). The stronger gene continues on down the chain. But the bad genes keep on developing over time in mutations, or in recessive genes. It is not a case of one animal has wings, so it can get off the ground and fly to escape predators, and the other doesn't, so that it gets killed and becomes extinct as is in survival of the most well adapted. It is a case of survival of a gene within its own species ; if the gene isn't flawed, it will continue on in babies,
but the baby may not have the trait, because the gene may be recessive.
In the end it says that everyone is selfish, but that is besides the point. The book is hard to explain, but when you read it it is much clearer, and it begins to look like survival of the most well adapted.
Duke Malcolm
05-16-2005, 18:40
Ah yes, and why does it have to be a creator?
Why are these astrophysicists so arogant as to think they figured everything out and everything is in perfect order?
I don't know. I just know that these is one of their reasonings. It seemed silly to me at first, too.
Big_John
05-16-2005, 20:58
I don't know. I just know that these is one of their reasonings. It seemed silly to me at first, too.that's because it is silly. obviously these revered, esteemed astrophysicists can't look at simple probabilities without getting all starry eyed.
Duke Malcolm
05-16-2005, 22:06
They have their arguments, but to me, there is as much reason to suggest that there is a Creator as there is to suggest that there is not a Creator, so Agnosticism is the chosen path for me.
Ah yes, and why does it have to be a creator?
Why are these astrophysicists so arogant as to think they figured everything out and everything is in perfect order?
Why not I ask? Things in science are goverened by rules are they not?
Evolution is not totally random, neither is anything else...they are governed by the rules of physics or some other rule. Therefore, can not the universe be governed by rules? Our lives are governed by things like the laws of motion and perhaps in the future Quantum Mechanics...I don't presume to understand such laws but they do exist and it is proven...thus is there not order?
Perfect order is in the eye of the beholder...it depends whether you can see the strands in seemingly meaningless data...all the things I learn by reading AS papers and A level papers in physics before GCSE level...nothing ~D
Mikeus Caesar
05-16-2005, 22:37
Haha!!!
Non-believers - 44
Believers - 33
I don't believe in God because it doesn't seem logical.
Byzantine Prince
05-16-2005, 22:39
Why not I ask? Things in science are goverened by rules are they not?
Evolution is not totally random, neither is anything else...they are governed by the rules of physics or some other rule.
Just because there are rules doesn't make them have order. Evolution is completely random. Just because we think that we have figured out some rules and things that hapen often doesn't mean these rules were made by someone neither does it mean we cannot bend these rules. Just like the man flying. Gravity would have you think it's impossible but there you have it.
Don Corleone
05-16-2005, 22:49
Just because there are rules doesn't make them have order. Evolution is completely random. Just because we think that we have figured out some rules and things that hapen often doesn't mean these rules were made by someone neither does it mean we cannot bend these rules. Just like the man flying. Gravity would have you think it's impossible but there you have it.
And it was another set of rules, referred to collectively as 'Bernouli's princple' that made flight possible. What's your point?
The defintion of random, according to my friend Mr. Webster, is 'lacking aim or method, purposeless, haphazard". Defintion 2 "Not unform, of different sizes". Definition 3 "from statistics, of, pertaining to, or characterizing a set of items every member of which has an equal chance of occurring or of occurring with a particular frequency".
Clearly, definition 3 would be the most appropriate in this case, and it does not define evolution. All outcomes are not equally likely, and there are some clearly observable patterns that impact the outcome, such as weather. Just because the outcome is not deterministic doesn't mean it's random.
You guys on the "No God" side need to be careful not to hinge all of your arguments on the "universe is chaotic & random". You certainly should see that the arguments that around an ordered universe and around the existence of God are two independent considerations. I can think of working models for any of the four possible combinations (ordered universe/chaotic & God/no God).
Byzantine Prince
05-16-2005, 22:58
Hehe, ok Corleone, I'll bite your argument. Even though I don't agree with it I can see why you are posing it. I guess I didn't make myself clear enough.
Rules are not the same as order. Rules can be bent by other rules that we don't yet know. What we don't know is infinite. Every rule is bendable.
Does that make sense? I think it does.
God has not created rules. There's no indication for that. God's existence is the eyes of most believers comes from some sort of prophet who does a couple of crazy tricks (Jesus turning water into wine etc...) , NOT science.
So we are winning again. May it be that one day God's believers will be extinct and us rational human beings(liberals ~D ) inherit the earth.
Don Corleone
05-16-2005, 23:01
After the rapture, when we're all brought home, you're welcome to it. Based on what I've read, you might want to find someplace else to vacate to, however. ~D (And before every jumps me up, that's a joke, I personally don't believe in an 'End of Days'. I take it as an allegory for the end of YOUR days).
You completely missed my point BP. I wasn't offering the argument on the ordered vs. disordered universe as any kind of statement on the existence of God. Quite the contrary, I have several times, including in that post, allowed as how any answer to either question is congrous to any answer to the other.
LittleGrizzly
05-17-2005, 00:44
I can think of working models for any of the four possible combinations (ordered universe/chaotic & God/no God).
I agree i don't see why whether the universe is choatic or not has a bearing on whether theres a god ?
Don Corleone
05-17-2005, 00:54
Thank you Griz. Holy crap! I think that's the first time you've ever agreed with anything I've had to say. ~:cheers: God, I must be catching that Socialist bug! EEEEEEWWWWWW ~:eek: That, or you're catching the 'Conservative' bug, muhahahaha. ~D
AggonyKing
05-17-2005, 01:45
*looks at Biochemistry degree* *clicks NO*
Hehe, ok Corleone, I'll bite your argument. Even though I don't agree with it I can see why you are posing it. I guess I didn't make myself clear enough.
Rules are not the same as order. Rules can be bent by other rules that we don't yet know. What we don't know is infinite. Every rule is bendable.
Does that make sense? I think it does.
God has not created rules. There's no indication for that. God's existence is the eyes of most believers comes from some sort of prophet who does a couple of crazy tricks (Jesus turning water into wine etc...) , NOT science.
So we are winning again. May it be that one day God's believers will be extinct and us rational human beings(liberals ~D ) inherit the earth.
Sorry, but you´re not winning anywhere.
You say that believers just follow someone who did some crazy tricks.
And you follow scientists who work with rules, but you said yourself that every rule is bendable. If rules are bendable and scientists work with them, how can you say that science can be believed, maybe all the rules they use are wrong?
You say that religion is based on thoughts or stories that cannot be proven, but the theory about the big bang has not been proven yet as well, that´s why it´s called a theory.
there have been a lot of scientific "proofs" that were later found to be wrong, so how can you say that today´s scientists are right?
You cannot see science as the ultimate source of wisdom.
Don´t get me wrong, I like physics very much, and I´m not saying it´s all wrong, but there are topics where even scientists can only guess and have no proof for what´s going on.
An example from our physics-lessons:
If you have a screen to display positions of incoming photons and then you send single photons through a single hole, one after the other, you will see on the screen that they arrive just as if you would spray paint through that hole.
Now if you send these single photons through two holes, you will get an interference-figure on your screen, even though you sent all photons alone.
Can anyone tell me how a single photon can know if there is just one hole and it can do what it wants or if there are two holes and it has to create the interference-figure?
Well our teacher said that physicians have no explanation for this other than micro-tiles having their own rules we can´t understand.
:bow:
Byzantine Prince
05-17-2005, 02:36
Sorry, but you´re not winning anywhere.
You say that believers just follow someone who did some crazy tricks.
And you follow scientists who work with rules, but you said yourself that every rule is bendable. If rules are bendable and scientists work with them, how can you say that science can be believed, maybe all the rules they use are wrong?
I never said what people should or should not do. What right do you have to judge me on things I didn't say?
You say that religion is based on thoughts or stories that cannot be proven, but the theory about the big bang has not been proven yet as well, that´s why it´s called a theory.
Did I mention any theories such as big bang? NO! I was talking about things like attraction and thermodynamics, not the far out stuff. Again you have no right to judge me on this.
there have been a lot of scientific "proofs" that were later found to be wrong, so how can you say that today´s scientists are right?
I didn't!
You cannot see science as the ultimate source of wisdom.
I don't!
You might not realize this but I don't give a crap about science. I trust philosophy more then any physics. I was simply responding to Don Corleone's silly argument that the world has rules that are now accepted and that therefore god must exist.
Of course like the coward he is he then backed off saying that there was no relation and that he wasn't trying to make any point at all. BS! He was trying to prove exactly that and he failed.
I didn´t want to judge you, although the thought of that is quite attractive. ~;) ~D
I didn't!
Yes, you didn´t, you just made the impression on me, but then again the later parts of my post were omnidirectional, not only aimed at you.
If you were never talking about the big bang, but trust philosophy(which to me is like trusting The Holy Bible or Quran), what does philosophy say about how life started/was created/popped up?
Byzantine Prince
05-17-2005, 03:16
Yes, you didn´t, you just made the impression on me,
Don't you have better ways to waste your useless energy then correct things that aren't even crooked?
I trust trust modern philosophy which you probably never heard of, but if you want take the ones on my sig as you start into consideration.
Philosophers don't bother with the technicalities like physics because that would make them scientists wouldn't it? They look at the big picture in terms of the human perspective although they never ignore physics when it comes to the possibility of being contradicted by it.
Don Corleone
05-17-2005, 03:21
BP, look man, not for nothing, but your insane ramblings mean very, very little to me. If you want to call me a coward, or any other name you can think of, have it. I'll even help you come up with some original ones because you seem to have this lack of ability to form your own thoughts, though you do parrot what you read quite well, I'll give you that.
Before you start though, you do realize of course, that other people have followed what I've been saying through the course of the thread and recognize that at no point was I arguing that an ordered (or a disordered for that matter) universe offers an iota of a clue to the existence of God. If it were a priori knowledge that said God exists, it would offer insight into his nature, but as I said, physical phenomenon can not be used in an argument to prove or disprove God's existence.
Now, where were we... ah yes, you were calling me a coward and misrepresenting my argument. Unfortunately, as usual when you do your own thinking, you weren't doing a very good job. Let me help...
You could call me: chicken, weakling, yellow, lilly-livered, sissy, jellyfish, mouse, poltroon (that's what Khafir meant, good to know) the ever classic 'fraidy-cat' , or punk. That's about all I can come up with that are still politcially correct. But, just to make sure you get your point across, and again, as you're not copying this out of a book, you'll probably need some help with original thoughts at first, maybe you should add North Carolina residents, Christians and cowards to your death list when you become generalissimo. Is that the title you've taken for yourself, or should we refer to you in another form? Grand Poobah :sultan: perhaps?
Byzantine Prince
05-17-2005, 03:39
So basically you have no point you are trying to make. Well thanks for making that as unclear as possible.
Anyways atheists win! Hooray! :balloon2: :balloon2: ~:cheers: ~:cheers: ~;) ~;) ~:cheers: ~:cheers: :balloon2: :balloon2:
Don Corleone
05-17-2005, 03:43
Well, I'm glad you finally got around to asking me what I actually meant, even if in a roundabout way.
You had said that the "law" of gravity was trumped when man learned how to fly, thus proving that there was no order tot he universe. I answered that the Bernouli principle, a very orderly, defined principle, explains the phenomenon of flight to a "T". My most sincere apologies if you confused that explanation for evangalism.
When you say that the Earth is tiny. I nkow that, everyone know that. But it may just be one small part of the whole. One small part of God's plan. Tiny as in insignificant and isolated. How many other lifeforms do you see?
Firstly, molecules are not elements. But nevertheless, they do not collide randomly. They may appear to collide randomly, but they follow the laws of science. You are mixing up collision and bonding. Two different things. Collisions are all naturally random.
Sorry, perhaps I should have explained earlier. The theoretical multiverse is another sort of univers, which theoretically contains an infinite number on universes (or a very very very very very very large number of them, anyway), and each universed therein has different laws of science (e.g. here, we have Potential energy = Mass * Gravity * squared Height, whereas another universe in the multiverse may have PE = M/2 * H * square root of gravity) ~:confused
It is similar to survival of the fittest, and survival of the most well adapted. It is still evolution, but not the more Darwinian one of survival of the fittest. Basically, it says that everybodies genes (down to the allele) try to have themselves continued on. Genes do no have choices. Mutation is random.
The weaker genes do bad things, such as kill the host, the person, or stop them having children so that the gene doesn't continue (which is one of the reasons sodomy couldn't be genetic). The stronger gene continues on down the chain. Good and bad is relative to the situation. (See my example of insects below).
Genes are passed along equally to the progeny with the same probability of distribution. It's called "Equal Segregation". Nothing is partial in the genetic level. The selection occurs when the genes are phenotypically expressed as a physical trait.
But the bad genes keep on developing over time in mutations, or in recessive genes. It is not a case of one animal has wings, so it can get off the ground and fly to escape predators, and the other doesn't, so that it gets killed and becomes extinct as is in survival of the most well adapted. It is a case of survival of a gene within its own species ; if the gene isn't flawed, it will continue on in babies,
but the baby may not have the trait, because the gene may be recessive. Oh no. There no good or bad genes per se. The multitude of genes make up an entire organism. It's not just one trait, it's a combination of all traits.
Whatever is phenotypically useful in traits are generally selected for, especially is smaller animals. Here's a popular example:
Two insects: One brown, black but the same specie. Trees in the surrounding area are brown. The brown insects due expression of the genes will survive because it can hide in the trees with the same brown color. The black ones are picked off by birds because they are visible. Now, do you call that good or bad? It's just a selective process which is random.
Now the insects DO NOT pick where they should be brown or black. The surviving browns will thrive more because more of the 'brown color gene' will be present in the population.
In the end it says that everyone is selfish, but that is besides the point. The book is hard to explain, but when you read it it is much clearer, and it begins to look like survival of the most well adapted. Guy, you have understand that mutation is random. When the pigment gene mutates to express another color, it happens randomly and by chance.
Well, if you find an example or excerpt of what you're trying to say from the book, just post it. ~:)
Papewaio
05-17-2005, 04:16
An example from our physics-lessons:
If you have a screen to display positions of incoming photons and then you send single photons through a single hole, one after the other, you will see on the screen that they arrive just as if you would spray paint through that hole.
Now if you send these single photons through two holes, you will get an interference-figure on your screen, even though you sent all photons alone.
Can anyone tell me how a single photon can know if there is just one hole and it can do what it wants or if there are two holes and it has to create the interference-figure?
Well our teacher said that physicians have no explanation for this other than micro-tiles having their own rules we can´t understand.
:bow:
Your 'physics' teacher is a Moron!
wave-particle duality
The inherent contradiction in the way energy behaves. At the turn of the 20th century, it was believed that light was electromagnetic waves and electrons were particles. By the 1930s, it was determined that light behaves as if it were made up of particles (photons) as well as waves, and electrons also behave like waves. This has driven scientists to drink and is one of the most puzzling phenomena in the universe
He should not be teaching physics if he hasn't heard of quantum physics, photoelectric effect, Uncertainty Principle, Schrodingers Equation.
PS Physicians may or may not understand that there is a model called wave-particle duality but Physicists should.
[Physicians = A person licensed to practice medicine; a medical doctor.]
Maybe I should have mentioned that or I explained it the wrong way, but he knows that, and so do I.
If a photon is in flight, it behaves like a wave, if it interferes with matter it behaves like a particle, but what is it now? How can it be a wave and a particle at the same time? when moving through two holes, it behaves like a wave and you get interference, but a wave would probably not make a single dot on the screen.
And please don´t insult my physics teacher just because I can´t explain. ~;) ~:rolleyes:
Duke Malcolm
05-17-2005, 12:36
Tiny as in insignificant and isolated. How many other lifeforms do you see?
I don't know what you are trying to say here...
You are mixing up collision and bonding. Two different things. Collisions are all naturally random.
We can predict collisions, you know, hence they cannot be random
Genes do no have choices. Mutation is random.
I don't mean that they have choices, I mean that their attributes, be they physical or some such other thing, shall cause something to happen to the host. Say, if a gene has a trait which causes cancer, the host shall die, so the gene does not continue. If a gene prevents cancer, then the chances the host will die of cancer are less, so the gene can continue on. More-or-less it means that the genes are only concerned with their own existence, and that the gene can continue on. It is survival of the gene, the individual, as opposed to survival of the most well adapted.
Good and bad is relative to the situation. (See my example of insects below).
I know, I didn't say that it wasn't. In your example, the brown gene would be good, and the blue gene the bad gene.
Genes are passed along equally to the progeny with the same probability of distribution. It's called "Equal Segregation". Nothing is partial in the genetic level. The selection occurs when the genes are phenotypically expressed as a physical trait.
I know, but the genes which do bad things would die off, because the hosts would die off.
Now the insects DO NOT pick where they should be brown or black. The surviving browns will thrive more because more of the 'brown color gene' will be present in the population.
Guy, you have understand that mutation is random. When the pigment gene mutates to express another color, it happens randomly and by chance.
Rarely is it that they happen randomly and by chance. Oft there is a change in the environment which causes the change. This has been proven. Who knows, this change could be caused by God...
Also, in your example, the blue gene may only be recessive, and so while there may be more brown insects, blue insects would continually pop up, contrary to the principle survival of the most well adapted.
Well, if you find an example or excerpt of what you're trying to say from the book, just post it. ~:)
I'm sure I would, if it wasn't so long. What I said sums up a few chapters, especially since the author goes off at the occassional tangent. Also, it would be breach of copy-right laws.
doc_bean
05-17-2005, 12:54
I voted yes, I do believe in a god, or a 'purpose' or 'design' to creation, of course I cannot prove this, but my reasoning is pretty similar to the astrophysicists; why is the universe the way it is if it was created completely random, where do the laws of physics come from ? Personally I find the idea that the universe just *was*, and the laws of physics just *are* what they are, without a reason, to be an equally ridiculous assumption as that there is a God that designed it all.
I also highly doubt that evolution, as it is viewed today, could really lead to as many different and advanced species as it did. Even biologist admit that there have been some 'leaps' in evolution, that can't really be explained.
I'm sure one day they can be explained, but isn't it a terrible coincidence that the mechanism that causes them even exists ?
It's also a fallacy to assume that being an atheist somehow makes you more intelligent than a believer. I know blue collar atheists that can barely read, yet Einstein (and a whole lot of other great scientists) believe(d) there was a God.
I don't follow any religion though, for various reasons I'm not going into here.
That's a fine line we're walking here, Drisos. Some members call some of my ideas absurd and they have every right to do so. I have the same right with regard to other peoples' ideas. I have every right to state that some religious notions look to me like aviation experiments that have long been overtaken by social and scientific progress.
On the other hand, I stated above that I take religion seriously because so many other people on this earth do. And I do. I have many times defended my view that the Bible, the Quran and other 'holy' books are worth reading and respecting in their own right, even though I do not regard them as sources of revealed truths. I have shown that I am more than superficially interested in Christian theology and in Christian writers, from Mauriac through Lewis, and I have made it clear in a seemingly endless series of 'Pope threads' that I don't share the common anti-Church view on Aids prevention in Africa.
But I' m not a Christian and I have a right to say and demonstrate why and in what ways Christianity looks absurd to me. Christians have the right to say (as a friend of mine once did) that my world view reminds them of an ant colony that reproduces itself without an apparent higher motive or aim. It made me smile, and it made me understand him a little bit more. That's the upside to such discussions. We should be able to write such things about each other, mostly in jest, and thereby reveal ourselves and get a better understanding.
That's why you'll always find me on your side in a 'Christianity sux' thread.
Wise post. :bow:
-------------------------
In fact, I don't have christian parents, and I've not grown up with christianity.
I believe in some kind of god, in a way that looks the most like the catholics do. But I think in all religions there are some mistakes. God has been misunderstood many times in my eyes, that's why I don't follow any religion entirely.
:bow:
EDIT: sorry for the insult that was in this post earlier people, though it wasn't meant in the way it looked like, I deleted it now.
Ser Clegane
05-17-2005, 13:39
:stop: Inflammatory remarks are uncalled for :stare:
I don't know what you are trying to say here...
We can predict collisions, you know, hence they cannot be random Why do you insist that collisions is not random? Can anyone predict lottery numbers? The numbers are random too.
I don't mean that they have choices, I mean that their attributes, be they physical or some such other thing, shall cause something to happen to the host. Say, if a gene has a trait which causes cancer, the host shall die, so the gene does not continue. If a gene prevents cancer, then the chances the host will die of cancer are less, so the gene can continue on. More-or-less it means that the genes are only concerned with their own existence, and that the gene can continue on. It is survival of the gene, the individual, as opposed to survival of the most well adapted. A gene is a chunk of dna that codes for proteins (dna -> rna -> proteins). Genes have specific funtions. If a gene mutates, chances are the protein that it now codes is no longer functional, because the coding is now different due to the mutation.
I know, but the genes which do bad things would die off, because the hosts would die off. Please don't use the word 'hosts'. You are your genes. What your genes are is you. Genes code for proteins that are produced by your body. Your dna is you. Eversince from birth, all the proteins in your body is synthesized from dna coding which are called genes.
Genes also do not do bad things, but they can be damaged. Our dna has an automatic repair mechanisms that fixes these. A damaged gene may be one obstacle removed from a pathway to cancer. However, our body has several layers of defense that prevents this from happening. It's more complicated than you think.
Cancer is not inherited. Probability can be higher than usual, but it's never ever a certainty it will occur.
Rarely is it that they happen randomly and by chance. Oft there is a change in the environment which causes the change. This has been proven. Who knows, this change could be caused by God... Rarely? No, no, that's a basic principle of genetics. You cannot refute that. The cause doesn't really matter, because the mutation itself is random. Mutation occurs in the coding of the dna. If any of the original code changes, it's called mutation.
Also, in your example, the blue gene may only be recessive, and so while there may be more brown insects, blue insects would continually pop up, contrary to the principle survival of the most well adapted. We're talking about number of alleles in a gene pool. If you only have brown insects mating, then only brown insects will be produced.
I'm sure I would, if it wasn't so long. What I said sums up a few chapters, especially since the author goes off at the occassional tangent. Also, it would be breach of copy-right laws. Feel free to summarize any permutation of the argument if you want to. ~:)
Duke Malcolm
05-17-2005, 17:02
Why do you insist that collisions is not random? Can anyone predict lottery numbers? The numbers are random too.
Collisions are not like the lottery numbers. And, hypothetically, if you knew the exact temperature of the room, weight of the balls, time between balls releasing and balls selecting, and God knows what else, one could predict the lottery numbers. Collisions can be predicted, they are not like the lottery numbers.
A gene is a chunk of dna that codes for proteins (dna -> rna -> proteins). Genes have specific funtions. If a gene mutates, chances are the protein that it now codes is no longer functional, because the coding is now different due to the mutation.
Yeah, I don't know what this means.
Please don't use the word 'hosts'. You are your genes. What your genes are is you. Genes code for proteins that are produced by your body. Your dna is you. Eversince from birth, all the proteins in your body is synthesized from dna coding which are called genes.
Genes also do not do bad things, but they can be damaged. Our dna has an automatic repair mechanisms that fixes these. A damaged gene may be one obstacle removed from a pathway to cancer. However, our body has several layers of defense that prevents this from happening. It's more complicated than you think.
Cancer is not inherited. Probability can be higher than usual, but it's never ever a certainty it will occur.
Increase the risk of cancer, then.
When I say host, I only mean the living thing to which the genes are a part, possibly like a symbiot (sp) and host, one cannot exist without the other.
The concept of a "good" gene and a "bad" gene is defined in the book, and takes about half a chapter to define, so I shall leave it to you to read.
Rarely? No, no, that's a basic principle of genetics. You cannot refute that. The cause doesn't really matter, because the mutation itself is random. Mutation occurs in the coding of the dna. If any of the original code changes, it's called mutation.
Sorry, I meant that mutation in beings, as in survival of the most well adapted. This mutation is not random. I know that genetic mutation is random
We're talking about number of alleles in a gene pool. If you only have brown insects mating, then only brown insects will be produced.
No, that's definitely wrong. If the blue-colour gene is recessive, and two brown-coloured insects both have the blue-colour gene, then their offspring has a chanc of being blue
Feel free to summarize any permutation of the argument if you want to. ~:)
I did. I would begin quoting little bitties from the book should it not be sitting on the shelf of Blackness Library.
Just out of interest, might I ask of how you are so knowledgeable in the way of genetics?
Papewaio
05-17-2005, 23:17
And please don´t insult my physics teacher just because I can´t explain. ~;) ~:rolleyes:
It was harsh but I based it on your statement:
Well our teacher said that physicians have no explanation
Stated that your teacher said physicists (I assume that is what you meant) have no explanation. Which is totally incorrect. They have an explanation that is more correct then Newtons Laws of Motion.
All matter is a wave and a particle. The larger particles are massive compared with their wave form.
Having the properties of a wave and a particle is like having weight and mass.
Objects can have more then one property.
What is interesting with quantum sized particles is that the measurement of one brings a significant uncertainty to the measurement of another property.
Which also links to this
if you knew the exact temperature of the room, weight of the balls, time between balls releasing and balls selecting, and God knows what else, one could predict the lottery numbers.
There will also be a portion of unpredictability due to the uncertainty principle, however the uncertainty is essentially inversly proportional to the mass of the object. With the size of the lottery balls the uncertaintly is going to be so tiny as not to be bothered with (ie you could do the lottery for billions of years and the quantum effects would not visible effect your predictions) So lottery balls act essentially in a Newtonian bounded situation.
Collisions are not like the lottery numbers. And, hypothetically, if you knew the exact temperature of the room, weight of the balls, time between balls releasing and balls selecting, and God knows what else, one could predict the lottery numbers. Collisions can be predicted, they are not like the lottery numbers.
1) Technically: I can't exactly remember Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. From what I remember, you cannot predict the location and momentum of an object at the same time. You can get close to the location at the expense of momentum You can get close to the momentum at the expense of certainty of its location.
Since momentum = mass x velocity, the bigger the mass the bigger the momentum, hence less the certainty on it's location. The smaller the mass, the less certainty on it's momentum.
2) You just said you know that genetic mutation is random.
I know that genetic mutation is random
Well, you're saying you can also predict genetic mutation, since physical collisions cause molecular changes. When I say random, I mean it happens randomly.
Yeah, I don't know what this means. That's ok. Dna is made up of small units called nucleotides. These nucleotides are differentiated by their bases: Adenine, Thymine, Guanine and Cytosine.
Coding in dna works in triplets, hence the "triplet code". These triplets eventually code for a specific Amino Acids (a basic unit of protein). Say, a small chunk of dna code is this:
GCA-CAC (coding for Alanine and Histidine).
The Cytosine is replaced by Guanine. Now you have:
GCA-CAG (coding for Alanine and Glutamine). The protein is now slightly changed.
You can also have deletions and additions. As you can imagine this "frameshift" will also change the codes.
Increase the risk of cancer, then. Definitely. ~:)
When I say host, I only mean the living thing to which the genes are a part, possibly like a symbiot (sp) and host, one cannot exist without the other. Symbiosis means two separate organisms, but your dna is instrinsic to you as you are instrinsic to your dna.
The concept of a "good" gene and a "bad" gene is defined in the book, and takes about half a chapter to define, so I shall leave it to you to read. The words are very broad, it can mean anything.
Sorry, I meant that mutation in beings, as in survival of the most well adapted. This mutation is not random. I know that genetic mutation is random Mutation occurs in the genetic level, see above. The phenotypic change arising from this we can seen in the traits.
No, that's definitely wrong. If the blue-colour gene is recessive, and two brown-coloured insects both have the blue-colour gene, then their offspring has a chanc of being blue That is correct, specifically, 25 percent chance. But, 75% brown. ~:)
Duke Malcolm
05-18-2005, 12:17
Thank you, Quietus, I didn't know much of that stuff about genetics. You are obviously a learned man (or woman, since I have no way of knowing over t'internet, but I assume man). I am not fit to argue genetics, since I have decided not to do Biology in school, so my knowledge of genetics is brief.
It appears that our debate over theology has become a debate about genetics, which, as I have said, I am not fit to debate (which is why I wished to know of your experience in the field).
I shall try and get this back on track to a theological debate, with a joke...
St. Peter and God were playing golf one day. Peter teed of first and hit a
pretty good shot straight down the fairway. God teed off next and hit a
terrible shot heading for the rough. Then out of the blue, a squirrel caught
the ball and ran with it to the fairway. Then a bird swooped down and
took the ball It dropped the ball in on a turtle in a water hazard. The turtle
then put the ball in the hole and God got a hole in one. Peter turned to
God and said, "Are we gonna play golf or are we gonna f@ck around?!!"
The point is that seemingly un related events may be the work of God.
St. Peter and God were playing golf one day. Peter teed of first and hit a pretty good shot straight down the fairway. God teed off next and hit a terrible shot heading for the rough. Then out of the blue, a squirrel caught the ball and ran with it to the fairway. Then a bird swooped down and took the ball It dropped the ball in on a turtle in a water hazard. The turtle then put the ball in the hole and God got a hole in one. Peter turned to God and said, "Are we gonna play golf or are we gonna f@ck around?!!"
The point is that seemingly un related events may be the work of God.
That's just as legitimate a method of reasoning as Family Guy satirising a teacher's arrest because he couldn't teach the evolutionary theory of "Einstein going back in time and ejaculating in primordial ooze", which prompted a response of "this stupid country..."
Duke Malcolm
05-19-2005, 16:51
Look, I'm not trying to prove the existence of God, but prove that one can neither prove nor disprove His existence. Yet.
Look, I'm not trying to prove the existence of God, but prove that one can neither prove nor disprove His existence. Yet.
The number of disputable assumptions are endless, just count for me the number of ways in which an atome cannot be splitted.
King Henry V
05-19-2005, 19:27
More Grand Inquisitors must be recruted! The zeal of this forum is slipping. Only mass burnings will convince the heretic of the Almighty's power and wrath.
Duke Malcolm
05-19-2005, 19:29
The Pope used to be the head of the Inquisition, you know, but they don't call it the Inquisition any more...
The Stranger
05-19-2005, 19:56
super theist, but religion ***** is on a mission to save the zeal
King Henry V
05-19-2005, 20:05
The Pope used to be the head of the Inquisition, you know, but they don't call it the Inquisition any more...
Now it is the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.
Papewaio
05-20-2005, 00:03
Look, I'm not trying to prove the existence of God, but prove that one can neither prove nor disprove His existence. Yet.
Howabout the Jedi/Sith Force? Can you disprove that?
AntiochusIII
05-20-2005, 00:19
More Grand Inquisitors must be recruted! The zeal of this forum is slipping. Only mass burnings will convince the heretic of the Almighty's power and wrath.Hey, I burned at least a dozen popes, and countless kings. Can I be recruited?
-----------------------------------
Back on topic: No, I don't believe in any gods until I actually see their power.
Howabout the Jedi/Sith Force? Can you disprove that?Exist - they do. ~D
Idomeneas
05-20-2005, 00:34
I agree that nobody can proove that there is or there is not a god. Just a thought i made. Sometimes our insticts or collective memory are more true than pure logic. I mean how many times you had a feeling about something and turned right? If humans are ''programmed'' to seek god maybe this is a proove of gods existence. I m not aware of any atheistic culture ever.
Alll those are just crazy thoughts i make sometimes like the type ''imaging our solar system being a molecule in a great body. All those molecules-solar systems form a universe body wich belongs to somebody-god''.
Mysteries of existence....
Byzantine Prince
05-20-2005, 00:41
If humans are ''programmed'' to seek god maybe this is a proove of gods existence. I m not aware of any atheistic culture ever.
Interesting thought, but I think I have a rational counter statement for it. Man is not necessarily programmed to think this way. We do however make up a lot of myths and heroes. I remember when I was really young I would fantasize I was a superhero and I actually "believed" I would reach that point one day. I think that is but a microcosm of what the whole does. Now the god situation is very interesting because it's one of the few fantasies that one cannot disprove.
Papewaio
05-20-2005, 00:57
I m not aware of any atheistic culture ever.
Hang out at a physics club and you will see an interesting mix of atheistic, agnositc and believer cultures.
Atheistic culture exists and it is more then the denial of God.
Idomeneas
05-20-2005, 01:06
Hang out at a physics club and you will see an interesting mix of atheistic, agnositc and believer cultures.
Atheistic culture exists and it is more then the denial of God.
I mean primitive or ancient culture not one forged with todays science discoveries.
Uesugi Kenshin
05-20-2005, 01:18
What is Atheistic culture Papewaio?
I only know one ardent Atheist, myself. The rest of the people I know believe in fate, destiny, a god in one form or another, are agnostic or are apathetically religious.
AntiochusIII
05-20-2005, 01:20
I agree that nobody can proove that there is or there is not a god. Just a thought i made. Sometimes our insticts or collective memory are more true than pure logic. I mean how many times you had a feeling about something and turned right? If humans are ''programmed'' to seek god maybe this is a proove of gods existence. I m not aware of any atheistic culture ever.
Alll those are just crazy thoughts i make sometimes like the type ''imaging our solar system being a molecule in a great body. All those molecules-solar systems form a universe body wich belongs to somebody-god''.
Mysteries of existence....Unfortunately it seems clear to me that several human nature, otherwise called characteristics (evolved by evolution - I don't waste my time with any creationists, by the way) that led to a virtually universal belief in divinity - supernatural power beyond human control.
1. Control: Nature was - and is, for the most part - beyond human control. However, our evolved nature makes us feels that nature must be controlled...by something. Here is the where the first myth of the gods, most, except very few, placed their trust on polythiestic divinity. Of course, until the developments go further, and prove the strength and, arguably, ruthlessness of monotheistic religions.
2. Fear: We are afraid - simple as that. Death, enemy, defeat, humiliation, etc. - we fear, so we seek a sort of comfort. This comfort must not be disprovable by human's reach - so what is better than divinity? Indeed, the comfort provided by the belief something that "have power over humans" allows some people to go further in their exploits, good or bad, "without" fear.
3. Greed: for anything, not only wealth. Greed inspires (or, more properly, forced) us to seek help of something that "have power beyond humans" and "is predictable." Again - divinity comes in.
4. This Nature is hard to name, but I will call it "crowd." It has far-reaching effects indeed. Crowd - makes most of us "followers" and a few of us "leaders." In what deals with divinity - preachers (priests, prophets, etc.) are leaders, and the followers follow them without question. Also, this allows another side effect: "follow the crowd." Since the majority of people do this, the rest follows; the extension of followers-leaders relationship. In addition, the "crowd" are often representing a very emotional/unlogical part of humanity. Most would not act seriously in something that did not bother their everyday lives so much, or that they are seeking excuses not to do so, unless the situation becomes desperate - like most revolutions. This "crowdedness" also forced the minority - I am sure there are atheists, secret or not, since there are thinkers - that does not "falls" to believe in divinity, or question them, to silence. The method of silencing (pressure, expulsion, conviction, execution, etc.) does not matter - but all are often not pleasant.
Hence I argue that, unless divinity is proven, I will always remain skeptical.
Edit: Idomeneas, my answers seems to answer your question two posts before me, posted after I enter the posting page.
Papewaio
05-20-2005, 01:40
What is Atheistic culture Papewaio?
I only know one ardent Atheist, myself. The rest of the people I know believe in fate, destiny, a god in one form or another, are agnostic or are apathetically religious.
Thats why I mentioned a physics club, get a far higher number of atheists. It is interesting the ideas they have, a lot of them are very strong believers in social justice and other ideas. They have a strong interest in fairness, the ability to test a situation, a like of fantasy books and a like of science fiction as well. Strong mathematics ability, greater majority can play musical instruments. A duality of hating 'fuzzy' subjects while like quantum physics.
In short Geeks and Nerds in a critical mass...
So sort of a variant on a 'jock' culture, not an entire civilisation... just what our civilisation is based on. ~;)
AntiochusIII
05-20-2005, 01:44
Thats why I mentioned a physics club, get a far higher number of atheists. It is interesting the ideas they have, a lot of them are very strong believers in social justice and other ideas. They have a strong interest in fairness, the ability to test a situation, a like of fantasy books and a like of science fiction as well. Strong mathematics ability, greater majority can play musical instruments. A duality of hating 'fuzzy' subjects while like quantum physics.
In short Geeks and Nerds in a critical mass...
So sort of a variant on a 'jock' culture, not an entire civilisation... just what our civilisation is based on. ~;)In other words, "Renaissance" (the name that signifies ideal people in Renaissance beliefs) people: innovative and multi-skilled - and geek. ~D
Uesugi Kenshin
05-20-2005, 01:46
Sounds a lot like me, except I am better at and prefer English and History over Math.
AntiochusIII
05-20-2005, 01:56
Sounds a lot like me, except I am better at and prefer English and History over Math.Look, are you some kind of my clone or long-lost real brother? :inquisitive: You copycat! ~D
Interesting thought, but I think I have a rational counter statement for it. Man is not necessarily programmed to think this way. We do however make up a lot of myths and heroes. I remember when I was really young I would fantasize I was a superhero and I actually "believed" I would reach that point one day. I think that is but a microcosm of what the whole does. Now the god situation is very interesting because it's one of the few fantasies that one cannot disprove.
What was the religion of the Huns?
Byzantine Prince
05-20-2005, 03:49
You're right NeonGod, I forgot about the Huns. They were indeed atheist and did not believe in an afterlife, then again very little is known about them.
You're right NeonGod, I forgot about the Huns. They were indeed atheist and did not believe in an afterlife, then again very little is known about them.
Booyakasha.
Uesugi Kenshin
05-21-2005, 05:01
Cool, I never kinew the Huns were Atheists. Cool beans.
bmolsson
05-23-2005, 13:21
Why is it important if there is a God or not ? I think it's up to him if he wants to show his face or not..... ~;)
Uesugi Kenshin
05-23-2005, 23:53
Well it is not important in my world (the world as I understand it) because there is no god(s).
There is an oddity in the world that carries over into my world. That is that most people believe in a god or gods.
Duke Malcolm
05-24-2005, 15:19
How do you know that there is no God?
Templar Knight
05-24-2005, 15:20
No one can prove or disprove Gods existence - each to their own beliefs ~:)
Byzantine Prince
05-25-2005, 03:06
Not being able to have any evidence of something is a very good reason not to believe in it. It's like you can't disprove the existence of the Lockness Monster, it's a weak example I know, but still.
Kaiser of Arabia
05-25-2005, 03:10
59.57% of the org needs visits from the thought police
Uesugi Kenshin
05-25-2005, 03:26
There is no evidence for a god or gods and plenty to disprove the ideas of the faithful. I also find it hard to believe that there is one superpowerful being and the writers of the Bible knew what he was thinking during the creation, besides "This is good!" What the hell is that?
Oh and as a side not I hate other people much less an all powerful being controlling me.
Duke Malcolm
05-25-2005, 15:43
There is no evidence for a god or gods and plenty to disprove the ideas of the faithful.
Go ahead. I am intrigued to see what disproves the existence of God...
Adrian II
05-25-2005, 15:45
Go ahead. I am intrigued to see what disproves the existence of God...Dunkin Donuts Dunkacino.
Uesugi Kenshin
05-25-2005, 21:00
Well Darwin (evolution), fossil evidence that we were not around since six days or so after the Earth formed, the fact that I have not been struck down or plagued with horrible bad luck (generally good luck in fact.) and the fact that despite eating from the Tree of Knowledge many people are favoritist imbeciles. Though perhaps in-breeding due to only a few people around at the beginning lowered that and the distance from those granparents as well....
Duke Malcolm
05-25-2005, 21:05
I don't see how evolution disproves God. It merely suggests that the creatures put on the Earth aren't the same as they were when it was created.
Evil_Maniac From Mars
05-25-2005, 22:19
Well Darwin (evolution), fossil evidence that we were not around since six days or so after the Earth formed, the fact that I have not been struck down or plagued with horrible bad luck (generally good luck in fact.) and the fact that despite eating from the Tree of Knowledge many people are favoritist imbeciles. Though perhaps in-breeding due to only a few people around at the beginning lowered that and the distance from those granparents as well....
The THEORY of Evoloution. The definition of theory is it is something that is very likely but is NOT proven 100%
Byzantine Prince
05-25-2005, 22:37
In my opinion nothing can be proven 100% therefore my atheism is excused. ~;)
Big King Sanctaphrax
05-25-2005, 22:39
The THEORY of Evoloution. The definition of theory is it is something that is very likely but is NOT proven 100%
Not this again...the theory of evolution is a scientific theory. In the same way that the theory of gravity is a theory.
Go ahead. I am intrigued to see what disproves the existence of God...
His/her/its own failure in proving its own existance. :bow:
PanzerJaeger
05-25-2005, 23:26
Id say our own complex existence is evidence of a diety, or at least intelligent design.
I would say that Man is God. In any case, none of the gods from which the world can choose can possibly be the creator figure simply on historic grounds.
Uesugi Kenshin
05-26-2005, 03:24
Life has been around millions of years therefore a certain degree of complexity in the larger many celled organisms is to be suspected. Saying something is too complex to evolve over millions (or more) years seems a bit like a cop-out to me because there has been plenty of time for the tree of life to prune itself of bad organs and such. (using a phrase from Darwin Awards books.)
Ok, so evolution disproves ID and such but does not disprove God. However, it does an excellent job of disproving the Christian creation myth. BTW I do not use the word to be offensive to Christians, I regard all religious tales that are not very well based in facts to be myths.
Proletariat
05-26-2005, 03:30
Id say our own complex existence is evidence of a diety, or at least intelligent design.
What about the existence (http://www.google.com/search?q=complex+regional+pain+syndrome&sourceid=mozilla-search&start=0&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official) of Complex Regional Pain Syndrome? Does that prove intelligent malicious design?
Big_John
05-26-2005, 03:32
my existence is quite simple.. :blank2:
AntiochusIII
05-26-2005, 06:10
The Greek gods are the coolest deities you could find anywhere on Earth. That's why Greek culture is sooooo popular! Have you ever heard of Aphrodite committing adultery with Ares, or Zeus who both fears (and feared by) his wife, Hera?
That's soooooo cool!
In other words, their legends proves the fact that, unless a deity comes out and proves his/herself's existence - I would consider the belief in supernaturality as a whole as a reflection of human nature, and not what regulates human nature.
Byzantine Prince
05-27-2005, 00:28
I concur Antiochus. Dionysus being by far my favorite. I love him, he's so damn cool. If he existed I'de pray to him.
It's said he was so powerful that when he was trapped by pirates once he blew them all away with just a flicker. He is also the least built god. Very relaxed, like me. Yet so powerful, he could destroy anything.:smitten:
Uesugi Kenshin
05-27-2005, 03:29
Personally I would pray to multiple Gods if I believed in the ancient Greek religion. Nike for victory, Athena for Wisdom and others, can't remember them all at the moment. Artemis was the patron of Sparta and what did she stand for? The hunt and what else?
Byzantine Prince
05-27-2005, 03:33
-
Remarkably Kenshin they stood for a zillion more things then they are famous for. Dionysus for example is also the god of orgies and violence(whilst in drunken rage). A good way to find out is to just search them on line. They are all very interesting and most imporatantly very flawed.
-
Idomeneas
05-28-2005, 02:33
-
Remarkably Kenshin they stood for a zillion more things then they are famous for. Dionysus for example is also the god of orgies and violence(whilst in drunken rage). A good way to find out is to just search them on line. They are all very interesting and most imporatantly very flawed.
-
Orgies? you mean in roman era. Anyway Greek theology is sooo complicated that you can get lost in all those different interpretations of the myths. Im reading lately 2 books. ''A history of greek religion'' by M.P Nilsson and ''History of ancient Athens from mythic years to pelloponesian war'' by S.I Kargakos. Guys my head hurt from overloading! I mean so many explanations and interpretations that even me a greek that grew up from infancy with those stories can get comfussed some times.
The Greek gods are the coolest deities you could find anywhere on Earth. That's why Greek culture is sooooo popular! Have you ever heard of Aphrodite committing adultery with Ares, or Zeus who both fears (and feared by) his wife, Hera?
I disagree heartily. The Celts, for example, had no goddess of love - instead, they just had every goddess figure have an active sexuality. Adultery was no big deal in the land of plaid.
Sumerian and Egyptian mythology are also very interesting. They provide a mind-bending scope on how different things were before Christian morality was mainstream.
Uesugi Kenshin
05-28-2005, 03:53
Well I knew they stood for many different things, however, that is what I( would be praying to them for. I was just wondering what else Artemis controlled.
Byzantine Prince
05-28-2005, 04:21
link - pantheon (http://www.pantheon.org/articles/a/artemis.html)
The daughter of Leto and Zeus, and twin sister of Apollo. Artemis is the goddess of the wilderness, the hunt and wild animals, and fertility (she became a goddess of fertility and childbirth mainly in cities). She was often depicted with the crescent of the moon above her forehead and was sometimes identified with Selene (goddess of the moon). Artemis was one of the Olympians and a virgin goddess. Her main vocation was to roam mountain forests and uncultivated land with her nymphs in attendance hunting for lions, panthers, hinds and stags. Contradictory to the later, she helped in protecting and seeing to their well-being, also their safety and reproduction. She was armed with a bow and arrows which were made by Hephaestus and the Cyclopes.
Oooh a virgin. :smitten:
yes i believe in God
it baffles me that any sensible person could possibly believe that the entire universe came to be just as it is today merely by random happenstance. such a way of thinking is in my view, completely irrational and ludicrous
Byzantine Prince
05-28-2005, 06:12
~
I think it's completely irrational that we are even considering the begginings of the universe. We have little to know evidence about any theory that it was created even. We are talking about trillions of years here.
~
Idomeneas
05-28-2005, 10:16
If nature is a self evolving program there must be a programmer imo. If he, she, it, cares about babysitting the creation its another thing....
Byzantine Prince
05-28-2005, 16:12
.
Ok, but who created the "programmer"? If someone created the universe then who created him and so on?
If someone created him then who created the one that created him and so on and so on till there is no answer, only speculation.
.
King Henry V
05-28-2005, 19:23
How come there are more Christians than atheists in the "What Religion are you?" poll, whereas there are more atheist here? I don't follow the logic.
Sumerian and Egyptian mythology are also very interesting. They provide a mind-bending scope on how different things were before Christian morality was mainstream.
Do you think the origin of Judaism and hence Christianity can be found in the mythology of ancient Sumer or Egypt?
Byzantine Prince
05-28-2005, 19:56
Do you think the origin of Judaism and hence Christianity can be found in the mythology of ancient Sumer or Egypt?
No doubt about it. The jews basically conformed to the Egyptian monotheistic period religion of Aton. Akhenaton, the pharaoh actually changed all the scriptures to read that there is only one god. The jews took that to heart and when they got back they streted writing their own mythology with Adam and Eve and all that.
Aton was influenced by Amon who influenced Zeus(or Dias), which is why in latin the word for god is Deus(Zeus). All these religions are interconnected and very similar really.
Do you think the origin of Judaism and hence Christianity can be found in the mythology of ancient Sumer or Egypt?
Sumer, yes. Egypt, not so much, although, at one point, Egypt did assimilate a great deal of Sumerian influence.
My reference to Egypt was more about how things which would seem shocking today were commonplace in the religion, such as the sacrifice and mummification of literally hundreds of thousands of animals or the torture-sacrifce of female prisoners of war by forcing them to have sex with a gigantic, stone statue of a particular ithyphallic deity.
Byzantine Prince
05-28-2005, 22:32
NeonGod, what part of Sumer religion influenced Judaism. I dont' think we know anything about their religion, they are sooo old(about 2700's). I think you might be thinking about the Assyrians, but they were polytheists as well.
Egypt has had the most profound influence on Christianity and even pagan religions of Europe. I refer to my previous post.
NeonGod, what part of Sumer religion influenced Judaism. I dont' think we know anything about their religion, they are sooo old(about 2700's). I think you might be thinking about the Assyrians, but they were polytheists as well.
Egypt has had the most profound influence on Christianity and even pagan religions of Europe. I refer to my previous post.
Considering how Abraham lived in Ur before YHWH apparently spoke to him and told him to leave, bringing his story of Monotheism with him, I would say that his Sumerian upbringing would have had a great deal to do with the shaping of Judaism.
There is a fair deal known about the Sumerian religion. You know, Marduk and all that good stuff. It forms the basis for H.P. Lovecraft's Cthulhu mythos.
Byzantine Prince
05-28-2005, 23:56
~
I think you are refering to Babylonians because Abrahamwas supposed to have lived between 2000 and 1500 while Ur was annihilated in 2004. Not to mention that Abraham is a kind of a fictional character only known through the Bible.
From Encarta:
Sumerian Religion, religious beliefs of the peoples of ancient Sumer. The Sumerians believed that the universe was ruled by a pantheon comprising a group of living beings, human in form, but immortal and possessing superhuman powers. These beings, they believed, were invisible to mortal eyes and guided and controlled the cosmos in accordance with well-laid plans and duly prescribed laws.
~
Abraham bounced around other cities after he left Ur. I don't remember their names, but the point is the same. Besides, that's just a 4-year gap.
In any case, I would dispute that, considering that Jewish calendar is well over its 5000th year, and Abraham founded the religion...
One set of the Sumerian gods were anthropomorphic and benificent, Marduk being one of them. The Elder Gods were the evil buggers and they were the ones upon which the Cthulhu stories were based.
Abraham's a fictional character? Yeah, right, buddy. You insist that Achilles was a real person; what's the difference?
Byzantine Prince
05-29-2005, 19:53
what's the difference?
About 1500 years.
About 1500 years.
In other words, nothing? ~:handball:
Byzantine Prince
05-29-2005, 20:10
I'm confused. ~:confused:
How could Abraham have taken monotheism from the Sumerians when the Sumerians weren't monotheistic and were destroyed during 2000-1500 in which Abraham was alive? ~:confused: ~:confused: ~:confused:
I'm confused. ~:confused:
How could Abraham have taken monotheism from the Sumerians when the Sumerians weren't monotheistic and were destroyed during 2000-1500 in which Abraham was alive? ~:confused: ~:confused: ~:confused:
I didn't say he took Monotheism from them. I'm saying he was a Sumerian and could not escape his own culture, affecting Judaism at its inception.
He couldn't have existed from 2000-1500 if the Jewish calendar has existed for over 5000 thousand years.
Byzantine Prince
05-29-2005, 20:19
That's what my encyclopedia had. It said he lived between 2000-1500 acording to the Bible. I think I'll trust my encyclopedia.
Also you completely ignore that Egypt had profound influence on Judaim being the worship of Aton was the first true monotheistic religion.
That's what my encyclopedia had. It said he lived between 2000-1500 acording to the Bible. I think I'll trust my encyclopedia.
Also you completely ignore that Egypt had profound influence on Judaim being the worship of Aton was the first true monotheistic religion.
It can't be monotheistic if it wasn't the only god, can it? Besides, not all Egyptians bought into it, especially at the lower echelons of society. I doubt it had that much impact as a whole.
Byzantine Prince
05-29-2005, 21:04
Read up on it. It had profound impact, but you won't know unles you read something about it. Google Worship of Aton or something.
Papewaio
05-30-2005, 05:10
Is an atheist someone who does not believe in a higher power then themselves?
If so does that make God an atheist?
Byzantine Prince
05-30-2005, 05:52
The Judeo-Christian God doesn't have a personality or belief system of his own.
Uesugi Kenshin
05-31-2005, 03:28
An Atheist does not believe in any God and at least hypothesizes that there is no God, if not outright denies the existence of one. By my definition an Atheist also does not believe in fate, charma or anything else like that, though the true dictionary definition may differ from my own.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.