Printable View
Again if science could prove to me god didnt exist I could not believe in god. I dont choose to believe or not believe in something .Quote:
But let's suppose that science gives you all the answers, then where is your God? One that is onmiscient, all powerfull and is on everything, suddenly it's...nothing.
Also thats a mighty big supposition. Suppose god came down and performed a few miracles for you and told you science was a bunch of crap. Would you still back science?
I'll make my question more direct then: Do you use God to give you some porpose or is God that gives you the porpose?Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
That will never happen. An idea cannot take form by simple transmition of toughts. So as God doesn't have any fisical form i doubt that he comes down and talks to me. Please, don't tell that you believe, after all science and man has done, and after what your senses can perceive that God has an physical body.
That's all the point, setting a point that is possible. But against you may think, the science cannot prove the existence of God, because God is not real, it's ideal, it's like trying to prove the existence of the number 1 (wich happens to have an utalitarist and practical function), there's no point in trying to look for the existence of 1, you won't find a big one hidden somewhere that sais "i'm the number one, and when you humans invented me, you were really basing it on facts". The creation of the number 1for it's practical proposes was created based on observation as any idea on matematics, so you can do calculations in abstract. The idea of God was created exactly the same way, but the difference with the number 1, is that all those facts observated had another practical and true explanation that actually gives results in reallity. So not science will never say "hey look Gawain, here i've the proof that God doesn't exist".
Porpose is a close cousin to dolphin.
Purpose is why we do something.
Pape,Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
Organic chemistry has specific rules, especially inside the human body (or a virus) that is a machine and complement of closed and open systems.
We're not talking about a stable piece of inorganic molecule here such as a watch.
And I didn't say "randomness", I said "Choice". A better word for choice is "nonrandom" due to the chemical rules. If you call it a "choice" you're neglecting chemical rules! ~:)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quietus
I have no idea of what god looks like or is and neither do you or anybody else on these boards. Is his form really that important?Quote:
I'll make my question more direct then: Do you use God to give you some porpose or is God that gives you the porpose?
That will never happen. An idea cannot take form by simple transmition of toughts. So as God doesn't have any fisical form i doubt that he comes down and talks to me. Please, don't tell that you believe, after all science and man has done, and after what your senses can perceive that God has an physical body.
So then your question cannot ever possibly be asked as science will never no everything.Quote:
So not science will never say "hey look Gawain, here i've the proof that God doesn't exist".
What is brought up in the discussion, yet ignored - is the philosophical question, "Did God create man, or did man create God?"Quote:
Originally Posted by KafirChobee
A comprehensive study of the mythologies of man demonstrates that ancient man needed a means to define his role in his universe and to explain the many things of nature that he did not understand. Along came theorists that through their observation proclaimed; "the world is round, not flat", "the earth revolves around the sun, and is not the center of the universe", "the earth is billions of years old", "man evolved from apes (and is still evolving)", etc. The church found all of these items to be blasphemous, and prosecuted or denied the namesayers as being heretics (and ignorant, and godless, and controlled by satan's minions).
For some churches, if one doesnot take the bible literally they are ignorant and doomed to hell. For others, the bible is the guide line for teaching morality and human values, and was a poetic means to explain creation to the ancients (that is Hebrews).
So, which came first? The chicken or the egg?
What is correct Science, or Religious pragmatism (dogma)?
For me, they can live side by side. If one can accept that one is based on physical observation and scientific method; the other faith. Faith that a supremebeing is wise enough to stir the pot and allow it to brew on its own - without its interference. Or, we simply accept that we were made from mud (as in 50+ religions and myths) and were not an awe inspiring method of evolvement.
:balloon2:
http://cogweb.ucla.edu/ep/dna_history.html
Type in the search, creationism, or intelligent design - you'll get what you want, regardless of your attitude.
http://www.creationministries.org/faq.asp
http://www.proofofcreationism.com/book_overview.php
:book: THINK! It only hurts a little ... honest.
For once I agree with Kafir.Quote:
For me, they can live side by side. If one can accept that one is based on physical observation and scientific method; the other faith. Faith that a supremebeing is wise enough to stir the pot and allow it to brew on its own - without its interference. Or, we simply accept that we were made from mud (as in 50+ religions and myths) and were not an awe inspiring method of evolvement.
Thats the question that man has asked from the beggining of time and shall be asked until the end of time. Again no one here knows the answer.Quote:
What is brought up in the discussion, yet ignored - is the philosophical question, "Did God create man, or did man create God?"
.
That is correct - but the individual who started the thread was out to prove by arguement that God does not exist - not who created whom.Quote:
Originally Posted by KafirChobee
Your getting very close to how I precieve the bible and religion.Quote:
A comprehensive study of the mythologies of man demonstrates that ancient man needed a means to define his role in his universe and to explain the many things of nature that he did not understand. Along came theorists that through their observation proclaimed; "the world is round, not flat", "the earth revolves around the sun, and is not the center of the universe", "the earth is billions of years old", "man evolved from apes (and is still evolving)", etc. The church found all of these items to be blasphemous, and prosecuted or denied the namesayers as being heretics (and ignorant, and godless, and controlled by satan's minions).
For some churches, if one doesnot take the bible literally they are ignorant and doomed to hell. For others, the bible is the guide line for teaching morality and human values, and was a poetic means to explain creation to the ancients (that is Hebrews).
How I hate chickens - but my belief system points to the chicken came first.Quote:
So, which came first? The chicken or the egg?
And why can they not have equal value to an individual? (This is not address to Kafir - because he states his opinion later on in this post.) That is Science and Religion. I don't believe in dogma from any church.Quote:
What is correct Science, or Religious pragmatism (dogma)?
Now I think some who only believe strict church dogma - I am not sure how you wanted to use the word - but dogma relies on a church proclaimation - which sets the followers of that church to false teaching because they allow on the church to tell them what the bible means. Man is fallible, dogma coming from a church authority will always have problems.
Yes indeed the two philisophies can indeed fit and live side by side.Quote:
For me, they can live side by side. If one can accept that one is based on physical observation and scientific method; the other faith. Faith that a supremebeing is wise enough to stir the pot and allow it to brew on its own - without its interference. Or, we simply accept that we were made from mud (as in 50+ religions and myths) and were not an awe inspiring method of evolvement.
This one depends on your belief system:Quote:
How I hate chickens - but my belief system points to the chicken came first.
Evolutionist: the egg must have come first. Chickens evolved from other birds in the same way that modern man evolved from apes. There must therefore have been a 'first chicken' which provides the missing link between the 'primate' of a chicken and what would be a acceptance of a modern chicken. This chicken will have hatched from an egg, however the bird that layed the egg will not have been a chicken, but rather an 'ape-chicken' if you will.
Creationist: the chicken came first. God created the first chickens. These chickens reproduced creating an egg or two.
I thank you :bow:
The proto-chicken layed the first chicken egg.Quote:
Originally Posted by KafirChobee
Organic chemistry does have specific rules and the formation of molecule bonds is dependent on quantum physics.Quote:
Originally Posted by Quietus
However the physical properties of chemicals are emergent. For instance although all chemicals obey quantum physics their melting points and boiling points are dependent on the particular way the molecules bind. This is an order dependent property.
Free will may then be another emergent property. It is not ,as demonstrated, determined by the rules of something lower in the order. It may be influenced, but it does not mean it is controlled purely by the lower orders properties.Quote:
That's why I call 'free will' an illusion, because its rules are based on the physical and chemical nature of the body.
Just like a program is made of binary commands, it does not mean we are limited to binary decisions.
[QUOTE=KafirChobee]What is brought up in the discussion, yet ignored - is the philosophical question, "Did God create man, or did man create God?"
You're mistaken that's what i tried to begin from the start. I say God's an idea, an then someone comes and tells ideas exist, but he's mistaken, then if God's an idea, and ideas are the "product" of work on human mind, and matter came before the idea, then man created God, simple. Now as i already said i don't like religion but i respect it as many other ideas, i only don't want religion messing with the social matters, it's an individual matter if ones believes or not, period.
Orkeny: God does not "look" he doen't exist, and "idea" different from "real".
Al Khalifah: Nothing depends on your belief system in the real world. Again ideas doesn't shape the world. So the chicken first or not, it's only one truth not two truths depending on your point of view.
There are lots of types of organic molecules and they all have different properties and rules governing them. Combine this with the evolved design of, say, a human body, with open and closed systems, you get more rules.Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
Bonds aren't really that important really, per se. You normally won't eat stuff you can't digest or are instantly toxic, for example. (Chair, keyboard, clorox bleach etc). And your body will break down or kill toxins and pathogens in your body as efficiently as it is able and of course waste is excreted as well (urine, feces, etc. ).
The body already evolved specific rules, mechanisms, and chemical pathways (the bonds are already factored in, and there specific rules in place), that's exactly the point I'm making.
That's why it is an illusion. Pain and Pleasure isn't free will. Breathing and Eating ain't free will.Quote:
Free will may then be another emergent property. It is not ,as demonstrated, determined by the rules of something lower in the order. It may be influenced, but it does not mean it is controlled purely by the lower orders properties.
Just like a program is made of binary commands, it does not mean we are limited to binary decisions.
Can you prove that freewill is not an emergent property?Quote:
Originally Posted by Quietus
That despite feeling hungry you can choose to not eat? Or despite being full you continue to gorge?
Honestly, I have no idea what emergent is, so I googled it and from the Wikipedia:Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
My answer to this is Evolution. Mutation and Natural Selection. Survival of the fittest. If a person chooses not to eat, then that person is a defective machine. We are machines but we are not perfect. Emergence connote perfection (it seems). We are not a perfect machine, hence there's no connection. Our body is imperfect and is subject to entropy.Quote:
Originally Posted by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence
Energywise, whatever you expend needed to be replenished with food. Your function is Evolutionary system is to survive and reproduce. Whatever you do in between , call it a "choice", or "free will" is an illusion.
First off dont call me Orkeny. Its like calling King Richard England. ~;)Quote:
Orkeny: God does not "look" he doen't exist, and "idea" different from "real"..
Again you dont know that god dosent exist and neither does anyone else. How many times do I have to point this out. You say god was an idea of manwheres as creationists say man was an idea of god. Theres nothing to prove your opinion is superior.
Well high king of the yanks Gawain of Orkeny the "Headstrong"~;) . Now you'll have to direct to me as "Raistlin the Soulforged". ~;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
Yes there's. What is the only "thing" that can be everywhere, in everything, at the same time? What is the only "thing" that has surged in almost every place? Why is God appearing in so many "forms" at so many places? Why others call the God to be the same and others do fundamentalism? Why the problems of the world are not solved? Why is that i can't see God? Why is God so adaptable? Why so many people declare to have seen God or some "emisary"? Why so many religions have a different idea (paradox) of God and why do will always hear something like "misteries of faith" or "God works in mistirious ways"? If you find an acceptable answer to that question then it will be nice for start to warm up. But meanwhile all this aims to one thing an "idea".Quote:
Again you dont know that god dosent exist and neither does anyone else. How many times do I have to point this out. You say god was an idea of manwheres as creationists say man was an idea of god. Theres nothing to prove your opinion is superior.
RedLeg appears to have understood with less difficulty that God's an idea. Anyway i'll wait for your answer.
If your trying to say that god isnt tangible thats a no brainer.Quote:
RedLeg appears to have understood with less difficulty that God's an idea.
Emergence is not perfection. It is having different properties as the scale changes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Quietus
So while a single cell is not capable of thought, a multicelluar organism can.
Thinking is an emergent property. Something that emerges due to the increase in complexity of the system.
It is much like coding in binary to end up with a 6 million colour palette. Although you are coding in 1's and 0's the overall complexity of the system allows new properties.
The properties of life is coded by four molecules that when paired in their correct pairings form a single identical molecule. GATC in DNA. Life is an emergent property of forming complex enough DNA sequences.
My signature alludes to emergence.
Entropy may actually be a boon when it comes to Evolution. Entropy (loss of information) may actually be a mechansim of mutation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Quietus
Evolution is not about you, it is about your genes, you can still choose to die. If your choices result in you not reproducing then your personal set of genes will not be directly present in the next generation. This may have a negative effect on the total number of your genes in the pool, unless your lack of reproduction helps more of your genes then what you could directly reproduce.
It would be an irony to state that lack of reproduction is the only indicator of free will... that would put worker ants at the point of optimum choice.
If emergence isn't perfect, then natural selection favors it nonetheless.Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
Cells needed energy to function and "live". Over the course of evolution that "hunger" for energy naturally selects animals that are "hungry" for "food". Food is the source of energy. Hence, if you poll every .ORG member: Have you eaten in the last 10 days?
You'll get 100% yes 0% no. Unless there's a member which has an eating disorder or a Ghandi-wannabe or or David Blaine-insane. ~:)
See what is the meaning of real, and of exist. Then talk to me again.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
Entropy contributes to the mutation but the mutation and information itself is molecular (base-pairs)Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
If you or anyone chose not to reproduce, that's Natural Selection! (Whether anyone calls it "choice", "free will" or "selfish" or whatever).Quote:
Evolution is not about you, it is about your genes, you can still choose to die. If your choices result in you not reproducing then your personal set of genes will not be directly present in the next generation. This may have a negative effect on the total number of your genes in the pool, unless your lack of reproduction helps more of your genes then what you could directly reproduce.
It would be an irony to state that lack of reproduction is the only indicator of free will... that would put worker ants at the point of optimum choice.
That's the point, the system is inescapable because everyone's part of Evolution.
Emergence is not just a biological property. Essentially a brick is an object, a house emerges out of assembling multiple bricks.Quote:
Originally Posted by Quietus
A grain of sand vs a beach.
A ray of light vs a sunset.
Emergence is a new property to do with adding things together.
Madison, Wisconsin FtW!!!11111111111one111
The Onion rules hardcore; we are the home of liberal satire. ~:cool:
I don't know if I can get away with what's behind this link...but be warned :book:
http://www.theonion.com/news/index.php?issue=4133 the same issue if I am not mistaken.
~sorry for the interruption, just back from vacation~
:bow:
Evolution does not stop freewill, in fact it might encourage the creation of freewill as the side effect of a more complex self aware creature.Quote:
Originally Posted by Quietus
Also if freewill is an evolutionary advantage it is a trait that will lead to more offspring.
Im a bit tired of your condecending attitutde. Your not my teacher or parent so dont go giving me assignments. I fully understand the meaning of real and exist already. Get to your point.Quote:
See what is the meaning of real, and of exist. Then talk to me again.
His point is easily seen - He is trying to point out that God does not exist because he believes that its only an Idea and that there is no physical proof of God in his opinion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
He won't be convinced of the error of his thinking (toward by belief and perspective) - nor will he convince me of the error of my thinking (toward his belief and perspective).
Understanding what he is saying is different from agreeing with what he is stating. I understand his arguement well - its one that many atheists use when discussing religion - some more politely then others.
Exactly my thoughts. This is like I said a no brainer.Quote:
His point is easily seen - He is trying to point out that God does not exist because he believes that its only an Idea and that there is no physical proof of God in his opinion.
Yup thats what I mean by his condecending attitude. I fully understand what hes saying I just dissagree with it. Its not like hes come up with some revelation.Quote:
Understanding what he is saying is different from agreeing with what he is stating.
"Free will" is more of a product of society. Which is like the fourth layer/order of organization. Physics->Chemistry->Biology->Society.Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
If you are stranded in an island (alone), you're back to the biological basics: Survival and Reproduction(that's all you really are).
Gathering food ain't easy without the social layer. You can't reproduce alone (as a Human) but you'll just basically be on Survival mode. The "free will" dissolves along with the social layer. Where's the Computer, TV, Car, Playstation/X-Box, Cell Phones, Bicycles, Skateboard, Surfboards, Restaurants, Clubs/Disco etc.?