Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

No

Only Judeism

Only Islam

Yes to both Judeism and Islam

[TD1]

Okham's razor. We can either say "a higher power made animals for the sole purpose of sustaining something else he made" or we can say "an empirically viable process created animals, of which we are but one lucky species, who eat each other for the energy, and there is no discernible higher purpose."

One requires you add in a deity to give meaning to something that has no meaning, the other requires no deity.

[BlindKitty]

It is stated in the Genesis, that the animals were created for humans; see Genesis 1: 24-30, for starters. So this is written in the Bible, and thus we know it. Why the ecosystem works the way it works, and not some other way? I don't know. Maybe it can be reasoned from the Bible, thus I wrote about Doctors of Church, and perhaps other theologians; but it is not stated in any point of the Bible, at least according to my knowledge, which is far from perfect, that the God created the plants/animals/other stuff the way He did because, for example, He though we would get bored eating only Soylent Green.
That's like asking 'why claim that electrons are near atomic nuclei and then go on to say that we nobody can know where they exactly are'...

Okham's razor. We can either say "a higher power made animals for the sole purpose of sustaining something else he made" or we can say "an empirically viable process created animals, of which we are but one lucky species, who eat each other for the energy, and there is no discernible higher purpose."

One requires you add in a deity to give meaning to something that has no meaning, the other requires no deity.

Sure. Only while we can not prove either existence or lack of existence of God, we need one assumption in each version: either we assume that there is God, or we assume that there is no God. Thus, Ockham tells us that that both seem equally viable.

[TD1]

The simplest explanation is best explanation.

Simplest explanation: A man in heaven didn't create the entire universe for the sole purpose of sustaining human life.

[Cheeetar]

An aside: I believe his name is spelt Occam. And it's not about choosing the simplest hypothesis, just the one with the least assumptions.

That's like asking 'why claim that electrons are near atomic nuclei and then go on to say that we nobody can know where they exactly are'...

Not at all. Just because you can't assert an exact location, it doesn't mean you can't prove they're within a certain range.

[Lord Shonus]

An aside: I believe his name is spelt Occam. And it's not about choosing the simplest hypothesis, just the one with the least assumptions.

It also only supposed to be used when determining which of two hypotheses to test. When there is an element in the mix that is impossible to test, it is USELESS, and trying to use it as "proof" is nothing less than a crime against both logic and the scientific method.

[BlindKitty]

An aside: I believe his name is spelt Occam. And it's not about choosing the simplest hypothesis, just the one with the least assumptions.

Yeah, I went with Polish spelling, I think? Yes, it seems so. Well, we all know what we meant, didn't we?

That's like asking 'why claim that electrons are near atomic nuclei and then go on to say that we nobody can know where they exactly are'...

Not at all. Just because you can't assert an exact location, it doesn't mean you can't prove they're within a certain range.

Yep. And just because we do not know why God created ecosystem the way He did, with those exact animals and plants, and fungi and stuff, doesn't mean we don't know what was His purpose in doing it. We know the general reason for the ecosystem, but do not know the reasons for each decision, not to mention that God probably makes decision a little different than we do.

As an aside note: I do not negate evolution here. It seems legit hypothesis - I just stand on the position that it is part of God's plan. Just like you don't output your output by hand, but write a program to do it for you, if you pardon my IT parable.

[Cryxis, Prince of Doom]

I'm throwing my 2 cents out there

When the garden of Eden was created (or around that point) god separated the animals into two categories, ones that man can domesticate and ones that he can not domesticate.
The ones he can, their sole purpose is to be raised and consumed and used for human needs
The ones that can't be domesticated are there for extra beauty in the world and to add to what man had to take care of

After all one of mans duties is to farm and take care of the earth

[TD1]

Occam's razor or Ockham's razor  (kmz)
A rule in science and philosophy stating that entities should not be multiplied needlessly. This rule is interpreted to mean that the simplest of two or more competing theories is preferable and that an explanation for unknown phenomena should first be attempted in terms of what is already known. Occam's razor is named after the deviser of the rule, English philosopher and theologian William of Ockham (1285?-1349?).

I did misspell it, though. It was in my notes as Okham last year.

[mastahcheese]

If Humankind's purpose it to till the earth, and whatnot, what are the religious beliefs on space travel/colonization?
Does God not matter outside of earth? Is it inherently sinful to leave the planet?

[Frumple]

Well, seems to be higher purpose that 'just evolved and that's it', anyway, so I would probably take it if I were animal kingdom.

I kinda' hope you're kidding, but I'd definitely take "meaningless" over "the laughter of hungry gods" any day of the weak. Better to have no purpose than that purpose to be tortured, killed, and eaten. The latter is kinda' like saying that you should be happy to look forward to a future of being raped for the rest of eternity -- at least you had a purpose, right?

Bugger that with a cactus. A terrible purpose is worse than none.

Also, what is a food system that doesn't tie into the major ecosystem?

Most of the deep-sea stuff is largely unattached to the larger ecosystems. There's plenty of extreme condition systems that are effectively disconnected from everything else, as well.

But since it is generally seemed as bad thing to make species go extinct, I presume they all fulfill some role in ecosystem? Or is just for the sake of 100% completionists of real life that we try to save the endangered species?

It's mostly because the so-called equilibrium you're talking about is incredibly fragile and often goes off the rails all its lonesome. We want biodiversity because that means it's somewhat more difficult for the entire system to go to pot when half of it can die off and the rest still make it. Because stuff like that has happened before. If YWHW was a bioengineer, it was a goddamn horrible one.

Actually, we are perfectly capable of eating any animal I know that can eat us... They just part of the ecosystem.

Plenty of parasites and whatnot that are perfectly capable of killing us and living off the remains that we can't do jack about, much less eat. Bacteria rule this world by the numbers, not man.

It is stated in the Genesis, that the animals were created for humans; see Genesis 1: 24-30, for starters. So this is written in the Bible, and thus we know it.

Man, if rulership means you're supposed to eat your underlings, our monarchs and whatnot have been massively heretical.

... regardless, those verses do not mention the consumption of animals at all. YWHW actually pretty specifically states we're supposed to eat plants in those lines.

[smjjames]

It is stated in the Genesis, that the animals were created for humans; see Genesis 1: 24-30, for starters. So this is written in the Bible, and thus we know it. Why the ecosystem works the way it works, and not some other way? I don't know. Maybe it can be reasoned from the Bible, thus I wrote about Doctors of Church, and perhaps other theologians; but it is not stated in any point of the Bible, at least according to my knowledge, which is far from perfect, that the God created the plants/animals/other stuff the way He did because, for example, He though we would get bored eating only Soylent Green.
That's like asking 'why claim that electrons are near atomic nuclei and then go on to say that we nobody can know where they exactly are'...

Okham's razor. We can either say "a higher power made animals for the sole purpose of sustaining something else he made" or we can say "an empirically viable process created animals, of which we are but one lucky species, who eat each other for the energy, and there is no discernible higher purpose."

One requires you add in a deity to give meaning to something that has no meaning, the other requires no deity.

Sure. Only while we can not prove either existence or lack of existence of God, we need one assumption in each version: either we assume that there is God, or we assume that there is no God. Thus, Ockham tells us that that both seem equally viable.

Sort of like the Schrodingers Cat thing, except replace cat with god, though I guess things get even wierder when you consider god as being undead or something, lol.

[Cryxis, Prince of Doom]

If Humankind's purpose it to till the earth, and whatnot, what are the religious beliefs on space travel/colonization?
Does God not matter outside of earth? Is it inherently sinful to leave the planet?

I did say one of his jobs was to take care of the earth
He can still do that if his brothers are out in space, I'm pretty sure that there will always be people here (within out life times, I'm not argueing for a few hundred years from now) people here to till the earth and mend it's wounds that we have inflicted on it

[TD1]

So he put the wounder on earth, then told them to heal the wounds they make? Sounds torturous.

Anyway, what happens when the sun goes "boom."

Assuming mankind lives on on some distant planet, what is God's purpose for humanity then?

[Graknorke]

Sure. Only while we can not prove either existence or lack of existence of God, we need one assumption in each version: either we assume that there is God, or we assume that there is no God. Thus, Ockham tells us that that both seem equally viable.

That's not quite true.
One necessitates a god, but the other doesn't necessarily exclude a god. What it does exclude is the God from the Bible. Difference there.

[BlindKitty]

-snip-

Well, neither one of is animal kingdom, so you have your choice, and I will have mine, neither of which matter.

I do not know much about deep-sea stuff, but I have heard stuff like eating whatever dies higher up, and eating some of the stuff that comes from below, like sulphur oxides and whatnot, is actually quite important to other parts of the major ecosystem. But, if you want to try and argue about it being completely detached from the rest of the planet Earth, I guess I'm not your man. I do not know enough about biology to make assumptions about those parts of Earth's ecosystem.

Well, if engineer making fragile things is a bad one, it is time to kick the collective butt of all the Intel's engineers. Do you hear that, CEO of Intel?

Killing and eating are two different things is my book, but OK. I still do not know what the problem is with animals that can kill men anyway? Again: part of the ecosystem. They all have their role to fulfil, don't they? They are not existing for the sole purpose of try and wipe out the human race for the amusement of God, they are part of the aforementioned equilibrium. But I have to admit, there are animals that are capable of killing us / eating us and we can not eat them.

If you want in-depth analysis of the Biblical texts with hundred - places long bibliography, I think forum posts aren't the way to go. At the very least, Jesus ate fish, so eating animals is no problem with God. Also, again, being eaten is not the sole purpose of all the animals; sustaining humans in various ways is. Yes, part of it is being those dogs that help blind people move around and stuff; they are not eaten by us, and they do not eat us, and yet they are important for us.

If Humankind's purpose it to till the earth, and whatnot, what are the religious beliefs on space travel/colonization?
Does God not matter outside of earth? Is it inherently sinful to leave the planet?

Well, Earth should be interpreted as Universe, since it was the only place created in the seven days when God made everything, at least as far as I know.

Sure. Only while we can not prove either existence or lack of existence of God, we need one assumption in each version: either we assume that there is God, or we assume that there is no God. Thus, Ockham tells us that that both seem equally viable.

That's not quite true.
One necessitates a god, but the other doesn't necessarily exclude a god. What it does exclude is the God from the Bible. Difference there.

Are we still talking about the 'animals exist to sustain mankind' vs 'animals exist for no reason whatsoever' here? Because it is debate so entirely different, it would probably go in other thread, something about philosophy, definition of assumption and stuff like that.