Print

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

[Andir]

As I said before, this discussion is entirely secular except for the use of the word "god".

God isn't really a secular concept, though. It might help for him to redefine what he is talking about without relying on religious words or concepts. If he was hoping to make this a secular argument, then he rather shot himself in the foot by including religious concepts in it, IMO.

Thank you.  You worded it better than I did, but that's one of my points.

[Aqizzar]

I for one am skeptical of the objectivity of the thread.  Partly because in the past lumin showed himself to be an ornery, spiteful troll.  However, he's being friendly enough now that I'm plenty willing to give him the benefit of doubt.  Nonetheless, the way the OP was worded suggests to me more "Conviction" than "Observation", and that he's not exactly putting his theory up to incorporate academic debate.

Among the chief things the Internet has taught me is that there is no such thing as objective discussion of religious topics.  If you're willing to participate at all, it's because you already believe, on some level, that you are right where everyone else is wrong, and want to be proved so.  My own posts prove such about me.

[Andir]

Among the chief things the Internet has taught me is that there is no such thing as objective discussion of religious topics.

Not just religious topics, and not just on the Internet.

[Kagus]

Rather irrelevant, but I just love that thing too damn much.


Anyways, Yanlin, I think you should watch "Religulous".  The film is essentially about Bill Maher trying to find out how and/or why intelligent people believe in religion (note that I say religion, not specifically god).  In his quest, he interviews two Christian scientists, one who makes an utter fool of himself and one who doesn't.  The second one is, interestingly enough, an astronomer.

It's nitpicking, but you did mention a couple unverified statements (astronomers do not see UFO's, scientists do not see God), and I find few pleasures in life greater than picking apart arguments, regardless of what they happen to be arguing.

Besides, the film is just plain funny. 

"Well, you don't need to take an IQ test to get into the senate"
--Quote from a US senator.

[Ohaeri]

Besides, the film is just plain funny. 

It also has this song in it, which made me happy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j-sb6mfR9lQ

I love that song so much.

[Rilder]

Great somebody started a religious debate, this is surrrrrrrree to turn out well. 

[SolarShado]

"Well, you don't need to take an IQ test to get into the senate"
--Quote from a US senator.

I think I nearly fell out of my seat laughing at that scene. By the time the disgust registered, I was laughing to hard to stop. Awesome pic too, BTW.

Back on topic: I think I understand what Aqizzar is saying. For a being/entity/whatever to be deserving of the label "god" it should be omnipotent etc. and outside our physical laws. Anything less, however far above/beyond us, is merely "god-like", with major emphasis on "like". I rather like that definition.

Back to the OP: I like your train of thought. I also couldn't help but think of Stargate and the "ascended beings" from that series. While evolution/natural selection doesn't (to my understanding) drive creatures towards any sort of god-like state, there's no denying that such a state would be desirable and fovorable for the purposes of procreation. After all, how would one kill such a creature?

EDIT: A better title for the thread would be "To deny the existence of God-like beings is to deny Evolution". That seems to better represent the idea the OP was trying to convey.

[Andir]

EDIT: A better title for the thread would be "To deny the existence of God-like beings is to deny Evolution". That seems to better represent the idea the OP was trying to convey.

Even if it was posted that way... what's the point?  The OP's clearly seeking to push the idea that we should all believe in a higher power or we are all hypocritical.  The argument here is that you must believe in A because of B.

Arguably, it still points out that we are not in control of our lives or the world around us and we will not be so until we reach the point in our evolution where we can create and become god-like.  Even then, who's to say that's the absolute perfection?  It's a never-ending circle.  It's a matter of "giving up" and accepting rather than questioning everything.  I'm sure there's a psychological definition for this mentality somewhere.

[Muz]

I read the OP, but not the posts. Lol, never, ever make a thread with the words "God" or "Evolution" in the same sentence. People won't read it. Fanatical religionists just start long flame wars for the sake of it.

It's an interesting thought. I think DF proves that humanity will become God-like creatures given enough time. And who knows, in parallel universes, there may be other God-like creatures bent on destroying their worlds. I think our God just got bored of playing and Judgement Day will be the day when He decides to create a new world

[Andir]

EDIT: A better title for the thread would be "To deny the existence of God-like beings is to deny Evolution". That seems to better represent the idea the OP was trying to convey.

Even if it was posted that way... what's the point?  The OP's clearly seeking to push the idea that we should all believe in a higher power or we are all hypocritical.  The argument here is that you must believe in A because of B.

Arguably, it still points out that we are not in control of our lives or the world around us and we will not be so until we reach the point in our evolution where we can create and become god-like.  Even then, who's to say that's the absolute perfection?  It's a never-ending circle.  It's a matter of "giving up" and accepting rather than questioning everything.  I'm sure there's a psychological definition for this mentality somewhere.

I'd also like to add... at every point of the cycle of evolution, you will have to question the existence of a higher power or the ideology that this whole crazy world really is just the effect of random space dust behaving in ways to appear intelligent.  I fall on the side of perceived intelligence whether or not we are the god or the microbe.

[Andir]

It's an interesting thought. I think DF proves that humanity will become God-like creatures given enough time. And who knows, in parallel universes, there may be other God-like creatures bent on destroying their worlds. I think our God just got bored of playing and Judgement Day will be the day when He decides to create a new world

Interestingly enough there are several interpretations of parallel universes... one is that there are extra dimensions and another that they are simply so far away that we cannot see them.  Which falls in line with the idea of the thread, does it not?  Are we only one universe with huge expanses of distance between perceived universes or is there extra dimensions with clone universes existing in the same general space that we cannot see but for a few chance encounters and anomalies when things clash?  My interpretation is the singular dimension, extreme distance theory with "space dust" blocking the light/effects from other universes... but we've already covered that in the other "Atheist" titled thread and I didn't really mean to bring it up... but you... you made me.

[Heron TSG]

Think of this- We're so far away from the next nearest star, that if we pick up their signals, they'll already be a million years+ more advanced than they were when they sent the message. If they're not extinct, of course.

[SolarShado]

My interpretation is the singular dimension, extreme distance theory with "space dust" blocking the light/effects from other universes...

"space dust" blocking the light/effects from other universes

"space dust"

*clears throat* I'm hoping the quotes mean that you do know it isn't literal space dust.

It's that the "parallel universes" are so far away that light hasn't hasn't had enough time to reash us yet. Which sounds more than a little absurd, but since scientists consider it a serious theory, I'm assuming that's not the full, science/math nerd version.

[Andir]

Think of this- We're so far away from the next nearest star, that if we pick up their signals, they'll already be a million years+ more advanced than they were when they sent the message. If they're not extinct, of course.

Yep, and that really only enforces my thought that there are just such vast distances out there.  Some people believe that the big bang and the known universe (with the deep field view) is all there is.  There can't possibly be more than that because it's unfathomable.  I might even go so far as to say that, given those distances, light might actually not be constant and could possibly slow down over trillions of trillions of miles leaving us with the perceived viewpoint that we are "it" and our universe is solo.  This of course probably can't be measured today because our measurements can only be so accurate, so it's merely a hypothesis.

[Andir]

It's that the "parallel universes" are so far away that light hasn't hasn't had enough time to reash us yet. Which sounds more than a little absurd, but since scientists consider it a serious theory, I'm assuming that's not the full, science/math nerd version.

More like... We simply can't know, but that's what I think is going on by relating my observations of how light can't pass through fog very well.  We can't be positive that there aren't super massive clouds of debris and we are a byproduct of the collection of some of that debris.

Edit:  Excuse me, I didn't fully read what you said.

My personal idea on the whole thing is that it's not because light hasn't had time to reach us... because that would assume a point of creation.  I feel as though space could be just a jumble of dust and matter floating around, slamming into each other and generally remaining scattered because enough hasn't collected to generate the energy to create a massive universe.  I would explain the big bang and our universe as an accident of that matter congregating in a normal cycle of contraction, explosion, and eventual separation of it all again when the energy that binds it is eventually exhausted and the bindings holding it all together break down.  I don't expect you to understand what I'm getting at... I'm not exactly the best person at explaining my ideas, so I've often been called an idiot because it doesn't fall in the scale of common belief.  I guess I would best explain it like fog.  It hasn't fully collected into rain, but when it does, that raindrop eventually turns back into a cloud.  I kind of see our universe as a raindrop in the cloud and we can't see any of those other raindrops.

Edit again, sorry...

I would expand my raindrop analogy.  We are less than atomic in that raindrop.  In fact, we could be a raindrop in a much larger universe.