Print

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

[fqllve]

I think there are a far greater number of neutrally minded people out there than we're lead to believe by the media.

This cannot be said enough times.

By far my discussions of religion with people have been genial. It's only the rare exception that I've come across anyone especially stubborn or hostile.

[Criptfeind]

It started out so good.

By the end it was a incoherent mess that is only going to spark more fires.

Sorry.

[ChairmanPoo]

I tend to avoid these discussions like the plague, but I'd like to say that I found that comment a few pages back insinuating that "scientists" "have faith" in dark matter to be particularily asinine. 

[Criptfeind]

To re frame my thoughts in a way less likely to make people hate me:

And, inversely, who says that just because there are means for things to exist naturally that God didn't have a part in that?  Evolution is a powerful method of saying that life exists on earth, but beyond explaining variety how can you explain creating life out of lifelessness?  Scientists, for all their knowledge and tools, haven't been able to create life in any circumstance, and we suddenly need to think that the only way life could exist is purely by accident or coincidence?

This paragraph is going to cause issues.

Abiogenesis, well not proven, is a stronger theory then god did it. You are not going to stop any augments by bringing it up. The creation of life is also a bad example, we make new strides every year now. All we need is a cell without DND in it and we can (theoretically) make any sorta life we want out of it. Soon we will be able to make the cell from scratch as well.

Coincidence is not so odd considering the shear size of the universe. In something that big the imposable becomes statistically likely.

[Vector]

In something that big the imposable becomes statistically likely.

I can use the same argument for both science and religion.

Where is your god now?

[Criptfeind]

Right.

So we can assume that somewhere out there there is a good chance of entities so advanced that they are god like to us.

Obviously we need a bigger military budget.

Kidding aside, that does not make them our gods.

Well, not the christen god at least.

Ra is out as well.

The other gods I do not know well enough, but it may acceptable for them to be aliens playing pranks. It would depend on your interpretation of that religions holy book.

Edit: Hum. This line of thought is most likely not good for my continued non banned status on the forums.

Maybe time to steer away from it.

[fqllve]

An actually existing deity wouldn't have to resemble any of our gods in anyway for it to still qualify for the term. If an another species somehow created us it'd be fair to call them our gods. But personally my big requirement for any deity is creation of the universe.

[Earthquake Damage]

Can't God use the natural laws that scientists are discovering to further his goals?

One of the basic ideas behind natural law is inviolability i.e. it's universally consistent.  Assuming your proposition, the only way for God to influence the result is to change the initial conditions, which rules out an interventionist God.  This only holds if God is, by definition, not itself subject to natural law (i.e. God is supreme, not merely powerful, else why call it God, right?).  Religious discussions suffer when our definitions differ.

Evolution is a powerful method of saying that life exists on earth, but beyond explaining variety how can you explain creating life out of lifelessness?

Evolution can indeed (help) explain diversity and change over time (I'm thinking extinction, speciation, and such).  It does not, however, explain the origin of life.  That's a separate concept.

I'm not sure I'd ever use the phrase "creating life out of lifelessness", if only because it sounds a bit odd to me.  Consider "creating rock out of rocklessness" and "creating soup out of souplessness".  It's like "souplessness" is a physical thing. 

[Criptfeind]

An actually existing deity wouldn't have to resemble any of our gods in anyway for it to still qualify for the term. If an another species somehow created us it'd be fair to call them our gods. But personally my big requirement for any deity is creation of the universe.

Yeah. I would worship anything that can spontaneously bring matter into existence. Unless it was using time travel. That would be cheating, setting up infinite loops like that.

(Also, even though such a thing would be my god then, it would not, as Vector asked, be my god now. I believe this is a important distinction.)

Anyway, I would not worship a race that brought us into being, I would be grateful, but not worship.

One of the basic ideas behind natural law is inviolability i.e. it's universally consistent.  Assuming your proposition, the only way for God to influence the result is to change the initial conditions, which rules out an interventionist God.  This only holds if God is, by definition, not itself subject to natural law (i.e. God is supreme, not merely powerful, else why call it God, right?).  Religious discussions suffer when our definitions differ.

Obviously the answer to that is that a supreme god would be able to bend natural rules for us when needed. That is the answer until sociology is able to perfectly predict everything we do. Then we most likely will have other issues.

Also, I would like to add, given a sufficient quantity of power, I would worship a being, even if they were not supreme.

[Knight of Fools]

One of the basic ideas behind natural law is inviolability i.e. it's universally consistent.  Assuming your proposition, the only way for God to influence the result is to change the initial conditions, which rules out an interventionist God.  This only holds if God is, by definition, not itself subject to natural law (i.e. God is supreme, not merely powerful, else why call it God, right?).  Religious discussions suffer when our definitions differ.

Pretty much what Criptfeind said.  I never said that God couldn't intervene, but I don't think he's swinging by every few days to make it rain.

I'm not sure I'd ever use the phrase "creating life out of lifelessness", if only because it sounds a bit odd to me.  Consider "creating rock out of rocklessness" and "creating soup out of souplessness".  It's like "souplessness" is a physical thing. 

Point taken, but it makes sense to me.

[Willfor]

I tend to avoid these discussions like the plague, but I'd like to say that I found that comment a few pages back insinuating that "scientists" "have faith" in dark matter to be particularily asinine.

I do try my best, but usually true asininity eludes me. I always come just so close, and then miss the mark. It feels good to have finally reached the plateau of asininitude.

I was under the impression that its existence has neither been proven nor disproven, and that it only "exists" to make our current astronomical models work. Unless there's a new discovery I haven't been made aware of, or I am completely remembering this wrong. Either one is possible, I didn't actually look at the link before posting it.

[Vector]

There's also string theory in general, which is a massive point of contention between experimentalists and theorists (or so I hear, anyway).

[chaoticag]

Well, all physics theories are incomplete, and prolly will be for a while. As better and better explanations come about we're more likely to understand the physical world, but right now, we really can't test string theory. Not feasibly anyway, that's why it gets a lot of flak, since a good theory ought to make a few testable hypothesis.

[Glowcat]

There's also string theory in general, which is a massive point of contention between experimentalists and theorists (or so I hear, anyway).

Nobody claims String Theory is actually real though, not until there is proof. Hope is not the same thing as faith.

[KaguroDraven]

Technicly speaking by your explination then String 'Theory' is not infact a Theory, to be defined as a Theory in scientific terms it has to have been tested atleast a few times and proven true is said tests, or atleast somewhat plausible.