|
Intelligent design seems stupid to me because, sure, we can see and think, but would an intelligent being really have made us so stupid and weak? C'mon now.
|
The Unfan, you have some good theories, but you really can't "prove" that God is anything at all.
The fact of the matter is that they either exist or not, and beyond that, every idea used in your logic, let alone the words themselves could all be warped creations of some reality that lies outside of our lives manufactured by this entity. As long as you're in a cage, you can never really know your captor; as long as the laws and boundaries of this world apply to you, there is no possible way you could begin to define what limits apply to something in a different setting, let alone one that you haven't explored, seen, heard of, or conceived. But hell, you sure could give this aforementioned diety a run for their money in semantics. |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
If those different settings are based on illogical fantasy based ideas than you're correct. However, the writer of said piece of fiction can define those traits. If those said settings are realistically plausible than logic, rationale, and fact can define them just fine. The human mind is capable of functioning with rationality, knowledge, and common sense and thus can reason out that setting. Quote:
|
Quote:
If you had taken any time to read my post, I said you can't define the limits of a diety, because in the boundaries of humanity, there are certain factors pertaining to such beings that can't be explored. No matter how much you deny any possibility of a god, you can never really know, reality prevents you from fully researching the topic, and it very well could be a god that refuses to be discovered by humanity at all. It could do this with any creations previously given to man and taken for granted: free will, intelligent thought, externalized sense, or physical limitations. Whatever ethic you propose to deny the existence of a diety might conflict with laws and boundaries that are present in a seperate medium where reality is actually present, and that diety lives, or functions by (if not alive). Quote:
Since your opinion is biased based on limited perception and your spectrum of thought is entirely subject to the creation of any diety in the first place, this argument is flawed. Quote:
:nono: |
...oojay?
|
Don't you fucking compare me to that closed-minded, cynical, couch potato, right wing conservative, no sex acquiring asshole.
Edit: Also, if I was, the only thing said would be, "There is a God, He is great, and I can kill you if you disagree." |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
The moment you "prove" God his existence becomes irrelevant; he ceases to be. If God can be proved--that is, explained and defined by man's sciences and technology--he is not God.
Religion is based on faith, pure and simple. You either believe in it, or you don't. It is not a science; it is not based on facts. |
To The Unfan, you're not understanding what I'm saying, and you're being a douchebag.
Quote:
Also, religion can be whatever people choose to believe in order for them to more easily cope with the reality of their lives. |
Quote:
|
But that's exactly what I'm saying might be, except god's medium is reality, and our's is just a distorted copy of that, warped by its imagination, a personalised reflection of something in some other place in which we can't begin to ever define the rules.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
In order to practise science you have to have faith in the models, the 'assumptions' of which could just as easily be called 'beliefs'... this can involve believing that the models are actually realistic accounts of what is going on, or accepting that they aren't actually correct but that they can give guidelines which you can follow to do what you need to do. So in my opinion science is itself a religion. It's not necessarily exclusive of the other religions but it certainly gets a lot more done. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
How about this: ignorant teenage boy with tons of bravado preaching about the non-existence of God on an internet forum to show credibility for his cynical "free-thinking, wanna be new age revolutionary" theories contradicting any study of theology ever conducted in the past two millenia. |
I never understood how people could beleive in a "god".
why would you want to think something is higher than you? I don't, im not going to outright deride a whole group of people but i think that to serve in a religion you are submitting to the fact that you are a slave to something you can't see, be the papists, or Buddhists there's always a doctrine to follow. I like to think of religious documents, well specifically the Christian, texts a pretentious child's tale, ie to make them not scared of death. Fact of the matter is, you die, and your body is recycled into the ground. |
Okay, the idea that the sun revolved around the earth was never a scientific fact, that was an Aristotlean idea which became intertwined with the Catholic church and was therefore never challenged, until Galileo and Copernicus. I can't say what Aristotle based his idea on, certainly not any sort of scientific method, but it's pretty obvious why the church embraced it. Nowadays, scientific facts are based on experiment and observation, in all the sciences, from physics to geology. In my opinion, there's no difference between observing particles in a cloud chamber and looking at something under a microscope. Our understanding of the universe is no means absolute, but what we do know we know with a great deal of certainty, and isn't likely to be disproven. Most of the theories we hold true will probably be expanded upon, and shown to have a great deal more depth than we previously imagined, but they're unlikely to ever be thrown out the window.
Earth = center --> sun = center : result of aristotle and church, neither of whom used anything resembling scientific method Newtonian mechanics ---> general relativity ---> quantum mechanics : expansion of knowledge. newtonian mechanics still apply and are true, there's just more depth. |
True for the most part, but how about for the couple thousand years when the atomic model proposed by ancient Greeks was thrown out and the fire, wind, earth, and water alchemist theory was taught.
|
If you hadn't noticed, the Greeks didn't really have much support for anything they thought up. They just kind of sat around and thought about stuff, and if they came up with something they liked, they paraded it around as some great truth. Nowadays, we use the scientific method, and theories are expected to be rigorously tested and supported by experimental data.
I think it wasn't actually until Galileo that science shifted from the Aristotlean abstract theoretical view to being experimentally supported. But yeah, as smart as they may have sometimes been, the Greeks also came up with a lot of dumb ****. |
Well it was just amazing how many other brilliant scientific theories were conceived before someone decided to research the theory of atoms and elements again, since the BC's, something now extremely fundamental to all scientific thought.
|
Quote:
|
below me
|
Quote:
|
what if I said that i believed there were invisible monkeys flying around dragging us down, would you consider that to be less credible than the other two options?
|
You think so too???
|
No. How am I supposed to know if there are invisible monkeys dragging us down or not? To me, that's no more far-fetched than the theory of gravity.
|
well, absolute skepticism is all nice and dandy, and i agree with you that absolute truth is unattainable, but eventually you have to accept that scientific concepts are, if not "true," at least applicable, to make any sort of technological advancement
whereas religion has no application to everyday life unless you really think god is listening to your prayers and only happens to grant your wishes every once in a while, or if you happen to be extraordinarily lucky, is just listening to you and none of the other millions of people who pray every day. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
1. Time is infinite. Therefore you cannot measure time, due to there being nothing to compare it to. So the concept of "next" even for humans is faulty to begin with, as is the concept of time. Time exists soley as a means of control (read anything by Jeremy Rifkin) 2. Having no knowledge of the pre-ordained allows free will to exist. There is an important difference between a diety (one who by definition is supernatural) and a human. Our lack of future knowledge grants US the conditions of free will, not the diety. 3. This is the one question I can't wrap my head around. The moment I do I'll be sure to tell you :) 4. This is what I don't understand with atheist. We are debating the nature of the SUPERNATURAL. Our definition of perfect can only exist as a definition. To put perfection in practice would be supernatural. We can't concieve of it, nor define it. I'd refer to Kant's idea of the phenomenal and nomenal (i mispelled those) worlds. Ideas as we can concieve can exist in this world. But not the pure form of the idea. I'm sorry I came in late on this, my internet has been down. I always miss the good discussions :( AND METAL IS SERIOUS BUISNESS |
Quote:
|
Quote:
What's your alternative to this apparantly misplaced faith in science? Thing that rain is angels crying? Spontaneous genesis? I would say that science has aspects of a religion while not being one itself. Soley because all religions have a belief in the supernatural (of something, not neccessarily a diety) whereas science seeks to remove the prescence of a diety in everything. |
Quote:
|
hmm but what does any of this have to do with the original post of the topic? oh there was a topic? O Rly? YA RLY
|
hey, welcome into the club. Me too got basically the same problem. Love rock but all those satanic stuff is against my morals. Try McFly, they're a bit for teens but I like them quite very much, Westlife (alternative rock) and maybe Evanescense and Tokyo Hotel
|
I keep forgetting how big a problem satanism in rock is.
Quote:
|
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:15 AM. |
© 2003-2025 Advameg, Inc.