Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: NUKE on May 10, 2005, 11:21:33 PM
-
This is not a religious debate, so please refrain from that. This is a philosophical question.
Why did God create man?
God had created angels and all of the universe. Have you ever wondered why God had the desire to create man? It seems like God would have no needs or a need to create man for any reason.
If God is all knowing, like I believe, he must have known that man would wind up sinning against his laws and would require his intervention in order to avoid eternal damnation, hell, which God must have created knowing that Lucifer and some men would end up going to.
So why create man? Just curious if anyone has a good answer for that. Are we like his beloved pets?
-
It's good theater.
Ever keep an ant farm or play Sim City? It's like that. ;)
-
Originally posted by NUKE
This is not a religious debate, so please refrain from that. This is a philosophical question.
Why did God create man?
God had created angels and all of the universe. Have you ever wondered why God had the desire to create man? It seems like God would have no needs or a need to create man for any reason.
If God is all knowing, like I believe, he must have known that man would wind up sinning against his laws and would require his intervention in order to avoid eternal damnation, hell, which God must have created knowing that Lucifer and some men would end up going to.
So why create man? Just curious if anyone has a good answer for that. Are we like his beloved pets?
To eat animals.
eskimo
-
Man's concept of God is in error
-
Really... just how boring could omnipotence be?
I bet it would suck out loud.
-
hmmmm this reminds me of the Matrix (not the action packed part, but the concepts...)
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Really... just how boring could omnipotence be?
I bet it would suck out loud.
Maybe we are more like him than we thought. I guess he doesn't really have any friends, just beings that worship him.
Isn't that weird to think about?
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Isn't that wierd to think about?
If you're not stoned, yes it's weird. :)
-
Originally posted by Sandman
If you're not stoned, yes it's weird. :)
Well, can you imagine being God? You could have zero chance of having a friend who can relate to. That's weird in my opinion.
-
Worse than that... imagine that nothing could challenge you. Zero potential for growth. Nothing to learn. Nothing to risk.
-
yeah Sandman, very unimaginable.
Maybe creating the universe and man was a challenge to him in some way. I mean, think about this..... you are God and have existed always, before anything.
So there you are for God knows how long (sorry :) ), ALL alone with NOTHING.
A some point in enternity you decide to create matter and space and the universe. Then what? Still nothing really. I guess everyone needs a hobby, but even then....what inspires you? You can't die, so I guess you have to keep active :)
Just something I find hard to imagine.
-
Silly Nuke. We are God. :)
-
cripes.. if a competent educated adult equipped with basic observation skills can eyeball the world human situtation in general or in detail and still believe that god is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent, I have got a heluva deal on a slightly used bridge for him.
No checks, please. Cash only and in small bills.
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
cripes.. if a competent educated adult equipped with basic observation skills can eyeball the world human situtation in general or in detail and still believe that god is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent, I have got a heluva deal on a slightly used bridge for him.
No checks, please. Cash only and in small bills.
lol Hangtime.
Point me to the first human that can explain the existance of all the matter in the universe , let alone life. :)
I see no logical reason that would rule out God. But then, this thread isn't about that.
-
Originally posted by Nash
Silly Nuke. We are God. :)
Well, you have been a Godsend to the Phoenix Suns.....MVP from Canada.
Can I have your autograph? ;)
-
pr0n!
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
pr0n!
Oh yeah... God bless pr0n.
-
To invent and perfect speling.
-
this is almost like asking why is the sky blue or why do zebera's have stripes.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
lol Hangtime.
Point me to the first human that can explain the existance of all the matter in the universe , let alone life. :)
I see no logical reason that would rule out God. But then, this thread isn't about that.
Has your brain registered the point where such a question, or it's answer would have any effect on the price of my bridge?
-
Originally posted by B17Skull12
this is almost like asking why is the sky blue or why do zebera's have stripes.
Thats BS and you know it! Zebera's aren't in til Earth 1.05.
-
Originally posted by B17Skull12
this is almost like asking why is the sky blue or why do zebera's have stripes.
why is the sky blue? It's because light is refracted, filtered and reflected in the earths atmosphere.
Zebera's stripes are just a matter of genetics, like any animals coloring.
Now, why did God create humans? :D
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
Has your brain registered the point where such a question, or it's answer would have any effect on the price of my bridge?
It might not have any effect on the price, but if I did posess that knowledge then the bridge would become a heck of a lot more affordable.
-
Those are easy...
A. A sky is blue because molecules in the air scatter blue light from the sun more than they scatter red light. When we look towards the sun at sunset, we see red and orange colours because the blue light has been scattered out and away from the line of sight.
B. Two reasons: to tell each other apart and to confuse predators.
NEXT!
-
Originally posted by Nash
It might not have any effect on the price, but if I did posess that knowledge then the bridge would become a heck of a lot more affordable.
bridges are so overrated, I just brought some prime real estate in Nigeria ;)
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
Has your brain registered the point where such a question, or it's answer would have any effect on the price of my bridge?
The price of your bridge would depend on it's location, condition and viability. My question is philosophical, not econimical ;)
But how much do you want for the bridge?
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
bridges are so overrated, I just brought some prime real estate in Nigeria ;)
Well, I guess yer gonna need a bridge or yer car's gonna be a submarine on the next commute..
-
Originally posted by Nash
Silly Nuke. We are God. :)
****... I thought Skuzzy was God. ;)
-
pardon me, but just how did this thread turn into a bridge thread? lol.
Talk about God you heathens!
-
Originally posted by NUKE
But how much do you want for the bridge?
Depends entirely on how much yah got. Not to worry tho, I'll make sure you can afford it.
-
god didn't create humans. humans created god.
why ask why?
obey your thirst!
i'm rick james, beeaccch!
-
Originally posted by Sandman
****... I thought Skuzzy was God. ;)
nahhh...he's just the Pope.
-
Pope?!? reading is phundamental...
Skuzzy is the Pooper of Parties!
-
Nuke hate to drop a dookie in yer cream of wheat, but 'religionists' just ain't capable of reasoned debate. Another cranky old man put it like this:
"The most ridiculous concept ever perpetrated by H.Sapiens is that the Lord God of Creation, Shaper and Ruler of the Universes, wants the sacharrine adoration of his creations, that he can be persuaded by their prayers, and becomes petulant if he does not recieve this flattery. Yet this ridiculous notion, without one real shred of evidence to bolster it, has gone on to found one of the oldest, largest and least productive industries in history.
Frankly, potatos perform the same function as priests, but far more thoroughly."
Have a nice day!
-
I wonder if God could create an equal God? If he could, the "equal" God could not have existed for all time......so I guess he wouldn't be the equal of God, unless God altered time.....like I imagine he could.
But why would God create an equal? For a friend?
Just some more junk to think about.
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
Nuke hate to drop a dookie in yer cream of wheat, but 'religionists' just ain't capable of reasoned debate.
you think so? Can any man explain with logic or science how the universe came to be?
I'll debate anyone on the subject, and my arguments would be just as rational as anyone else. Want to try it out?
-
Originally posted by NUKE
I wonder if God could create an equal God? If he could, the "equal" God could not have existed for all time......so I guess he wouldn't be the equal of God, unless God altered time.....like I imagine he could.
But why would God create an equal? For a friend?
Just some more junk to think about.
Here's an interesting read on the subject (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/omnipotence/).
-
How can this not be a religious debate when you start it it off with a very religious staement like:
"Why did God create humans?"
-
Everything else was already perfect and he was bored.
-
Sandman, I bookmarked that link and also the other link from the other thread. I also read some of the other stuff about relativity......was a great sight.
I plan on reading up on both, thanks
-
Originally posted by Fishu
Everything else was already perfect and he was bored.
Isn't the "intelligent design" argument that everything still is perfect?
Edit: On second thought... don't answer. This is not a religious discussion. ;)
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
How can this not be a religious debate when you start it it off with a very religious staement like:
"Why did God create humans?"
It's a philosophical question. Don't think of religion.....think of yourself as God, or as God.
-
George Carlin answered this.
Plastic.
Needed Man to make plastic
-
Nuke, yer religion is based on a book that contains such an immense pile of conflicting values that anybody can prove anything from it.
For my own part, I've got far more intresting things to do with my time than to debate any theology with a half wit that's capapble of expousing nonsense nosies like " I wonder if God could create an equal God? If he could, the "equal" God could not have existed for all time......so I guess he wouldn't be the equal of God, unless God altered time.....like I imagine he could"
.. it's like looking in a dark cellar at midnight for a black cat that isn't there.
Pointless.
-
Hah... Schrodinger's Cat is immortal. ;)
-
idea - is the really a god? 1 god that had ultimate power?
or are we some aliens flight sim geeks 5 grade ant farm project?
yes i believe in a God i was taught to believe in!
but do you really think we, and this planet is the only thing he ever did?
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Hah... Schrodinger's Cat is immortal. ;)
Schrodingers Cat IS[/i] God.
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
Schrodingers Cat IS[/i] God.
Yep... we're done here. :D
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
Nuke, yer religion is based on a book that contains such an immense pile of conflicting values that anybody can prove anything from it.
For my own part, I've got far more intresting things to do with my time than to debate any theology with a half wit that's capapble of expousing nonsense nosies like " I wonder if God could create an equal God? If he could, the "equal" God could not have existed for all time......so I guess he wouldn't be the equal of God, unless God altered time.....like I imagine he could"
.. it's like looking in a dark cellar at midnight for a black cat that isn't there.
Pointless.
Well, if you want to explain to me how the universe came into existance, feel free. Can you tell me how you feel the universe, and all matter plus life, was created? Any scientific explanation that is reasonable to you?
Please explain. I'm very open minded, so just give me your explaination.
-
one time in band camp...
-
Please explain. I'm very open minded, so just give me your explaination.
An openminded religionist? Horsepucky, Nuke. You and about 56 million other religion cultists just love whackin away at folks like myself that are quite happy with the universe; unexplained. Peddle yer tripe to weakminded folks that require answers to the unanswerable (by current scientific acclimation).
Use caution tho.. you step on shaky ground; unless you and yer culltist pals manage to stifle scientific research and exploration, I'm sure an answer to your question will be forthcoming some time in the future.
Now if it should turn out that yer right, and I'm wrong, send me a memo in hell. Meanwhile, peddle yer dogma somewhere else.
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
An openminded religionist? Horsepucky, Nuke. You and about 56 million other religion cultists just love whackin away at folks like myself that are quite happy with the universe; unexplained. Peddle yer tripe to weakminded folks that require answers to the unanswerable (by current scientific acclimation).
Use caution tho.. you step on shaky ground; unless you and yer culltist pals manage to stifle scientific research and exploration, I'm sure an answer to your question will be forthcoming some time in the future.
Now if it should turn out that yer right, and I'm wrong, send me a memo in hell. Meanwhile, peddle yer dogma somewhere else.
Hangtime, relax a little. It's a philosophical question. Do you even know what that means?
But if you want to get into it, I will debate you personally about the logic of science in explaining the creation of all matter from nothing.
Science cannot explain the creation of matter. Can you? Since you cannot, how do you think matter was created? Did it always exist?.......oh, wait...that's impossible, right?
Either have fun with this thread, or get serious and back up your point, or go way.
-
It's not a philosophical question. It's theological and not much more then another Nuzulu7 'some one please talk to me' troll.
Your question isn't an objective philosophical question in that it pre-supposes the existence of 'God' which many in the world reject out right.
The proper question would be 'What is the purpose of Life' rather that your premise of the existence of 'God'.
A simple answer to question to 'Why did 'God' make humans' is he didn't.
You are incapable of having an open minded discussion because your questions are alway loaded.
You couldn't win a discussion over what time it is let alone one that deals with 'creation'.
Hangtime,
He will keep telling you how willing he is to 'debate' but his definition of 'debate' is to dodge and avoid answers until the thread gets locked.
-
Oh, the incredible ego of the religous mind... if this question cannot be answered today with todays proveable scientific data, ergo; God did it.
Let's spin it around.. explain the existance of the universe without using refrences to an unproven entity or refrence to any religous dogma.
Nuke, history does not record anywhere at any time a religion that has any rational basis in proveable fact. Religion is a crutch for people not strong enough to stand up to the unknown without help.. it's just fodder for weak minds.
The problem with religion - any religion - is that a religionist, having accepted certain propositions by faith, cannot thereafter judge those propositions by evidence. One may bask at the warm fire of faith or choose to live in the bleak certainty of reason- but one cannot have both.
Prove God exists by scientific means, or put a cork in it!
-
god is male, he has a sexual organ, what does he use it fer?
-
Originally posted by Wotan
Hangtime,
He will keep telling you how willing he is to 'debate' but his definition of 'debate' is to dodge and avoid answers until the thread gets locked.
Thanks Wotan.. yah nailed it.
And I want this wasted hour of my life back. ;)
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
Prove God exists by scientific means, or put a cork in it!
Prove how the universe was created, or put a cork in it. ;)
Start another thread. This thread is a philosophical question.
Picture that you are God. You alone exist and there is nothing else.
Why would you create man? What's the purpose?
This is the idea of the thread. If you don't get it, please leave.
-
Originally posted by Torque
god is male, he has a sexual organ, what does he use it fer?
measuring his mad skillz at AH.
-
Originally posted by Wotan
The proper question would be 'What is the purpose of Life' rather that your premise of the existence of 'God'.
A simple answer to question to 'Why did 'God' make humans' is he didn't.
Okay, you are right. Before I ask a question, I should ask you if it's proper or not :lol
And thanks for stating your belief that God did not create humans. So why are you Catholic?
-
Something ive thought about. Everything is created by something, for instance, Hurricanes are created by certain weather conditions etc. So how did God come to be? Something had to have created god imho if there is a god. There is a start for everthing mostly and a reason for it. Hard to explain but i think you see what im talking about.
Btw, i believe there is "something" greater up there.
another thing. Size is boundless. You can never have nothing. There is no limit to how big or small something can get.
Sorry, just thought bout this stuff the other day.:)
As for if i was god and why i would create man. Just as it was described earlier. You are the supreme. Nothing can touch you or come close to you. Id create people just for the hell of it. Create these people, make them worship me, give them guidelines knowing some will fail them. Gives me something to do with my time.
-
Originally posted by Slurpee
Something ive thought about. Everything is created by something, for instance, Hurricanes are created by certain weather conditions etc. So how did God come to be? Something had to have created god imho if there is a god. There is a start for everthing mostly and a reason for it. Hard to explain but i think you see what im talking about.
Btw, i believe there is "something" greater up there.
another thing. Size is boundless. You can never have nothing. There is no limit to how big or small something can get.
Sorry, just thought bout this stuff the other day.:)
And it's all very interesting to think about.
Everything is created by something....but if you carry that logic back to infinity, there can be no logical answer for the creation of anything.
In the begining, there had to be something to create with. What created that original "something" ?
Science cannot explain how all the matter in the universe came to be.....it does not even come close.
Any scientific asnwer is just as "crazy" as any religious explanation.
-
Quantum theory says something can come out of nothing. Experiments have shown particles appearing out of nothing.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Quantum theory says something can come out of nothing. Experiments have shown particles appearing out of nothing.
But do you believe that all the matter in the universe came from nothing? Before there was even a "nothing"
-
There is no "before." Time started with the big bang.
But I love to ask the same question.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
There is no "before." Time started with the big bang.
But I love to ask the same question.
But Grun, I do not agree.
What caused the big bang? Think about that.
-
Well one theory is that another dimension impacted the dimension our universse now occupies and the resulting explosion and relese of energycreated the (our) universe and our time. There is no saying ours is the only universe, even as big as it is.
That type of theory accounts for the fact that the early universe's expansion actually accelerated after the big bang which means there was some sort of exra enery feeding the initial expansion beyond the big bang explosion.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Well one theory is that another dimension impacted the dimension our universse now occupies and the resulting explosion and relese of energycreated the (our) universe and our time. There is no saying ours is the only universe, even as big as it is.
That type of theory accounts for the fact that the early universe's expansion actually accelerated after the big bang which means there was some sort of exra enery feeding the initial expansion beyond the big bang explosion.
Grun, think about the big bang for a second. A lot of people say the big bang was the start of the expansion of the universe.
1. the big bang theory does not even attempt to explain where that matter came from. That detail is ignored.
2. What action caused the big bang? And what action caused the action which caused the big bang, and so on? That string of reactions, would have to go back to infinity logically.
So how can science explain the origins of the big bang?
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Why did God create man?
Your question is flawed.
Man created God.
Or we can use the antropic principle:
God exist because he had to create man, else our universe would not have existed.
-
Originally posted by Naso
Your question is flawed.
Man created God.
Or we can use the antropic principle:
God exist because he had to create man, else our universe would not have existed.
Naso, take this as philisophical question. (As in) If there was a God. why create man? Look at the question in that manner.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Naso, take this as philisophical question. (As in) If there was a God. why create man? Look at the question in that manner.
I will try in other terms:
God created man to justify his own existence.
Without man he cannot prove his own existence to himself.
Antropic principle.
Is used to answer similar questions:
Why the universe is as it is?
Because, with a different universe there cannot be a man to observe and study it.
Funny, uh?
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Okay, you are right. Before I ask a question, I should ask you if it's proper or not :lol
And thanks for stating your belief that God did not create humans. So why are you Catholic?
You don't to ask me anything but I certainly will call you your BS as I see it. You wouldn't be able to understand the answers anyway.
I am not a Christian, Catholic or other wise as stated and re-stated several times in that other thread.
How can you 'debate' if you have no clue what it is you are 'debating'?
If you make the Claim that God exists it's up to you to prove it. It's not up to any anyone else to disprove you. Everything is 'unproven' until it gets 'proved'.
So stop your ducking ducking and weaving and 'prove it' as Handtime asked...
After all it is your premise.
-
To have fun looking my creation Nuke owned multiple times by my other creations in a BBS made by other creations of mine.
I am a silly God.
[edit]
Oh, you deleted the post.
Your question was like :
"But... but.... if you were God, why create the man"
[/edit]
-
As I said NUKE I like asking that question myself.
There certainly is plenty of space for god and science in this world.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
As I said NUKE I like asking that question myself.
There certainly is plenty of space for god and science in this world.
Yes. I think that science has no more of a logical explanation for the creation of the universe than religion does though.
It is as logical to say that God created the universe as it is to say that the universe just created itself.
-
Not really.
Experiments definitevly prove that particles do simply appear out of nothing.
Can you prove anything about God?
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Not really.
Experiments definitevly prove that particles do simply appear out of nothing.
Can you prove anything about God?
Are you saying that matter can be created?
-
Simply appears out of nowhere.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Simply appears out of nowhere.
so you believe that matter can be created?
-
I'm not sure what spin you are trying to put on it with that question.
But FWIW, scientific experients have proven and observed the Quantum theory prediction that particles can simply appear out of nowhere for no reason.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
I'm not sure what spin you are trying to put on it with that question.
But FWIW, scientific experients have proven and observed the Quantum theory prediction that particles can simply appear out of nowhere for no reason.
I'm not putting a spin on it, was just asking if you think matter can be created.
Has it been proven that matter can be created from nothing?
-
The quantum theory prediction that particles can appear out of nothing for no reason has been verified in experients.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
The quantum theory prediction that particles can appear out of nothing for no reason has been verified in experients.
So you believe that matter can be created then. Out of obsolute nothing, matter can be created?
-
The way you pose the question it will basically have a YES/NO answer.
Your insistance in asking the question again and again implies that you really want an answer.
Moreover, it implies that you have some preformed clever response which you think will support whatever point you are trying to make.
So just for the sake argument and basic honesty here.
If I answer YES, what will your respnse be?
Same if I answer NO, what will your response be?
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
The way you pose the question will basically have a YES/NO answer.
Your insistance in asking the question again and again implies that you wanbt an answer.
It also implies that you have some preformed clever response which you think will support whatever point you are trying to make.
So just for the sake argument and basic honesty here.
If I answer YES, what will your respnse be?
Same if I answer NO, what will your response be?
The way I pose the question? How could I ask it more clearly?
Do you believe that matter can be created? How can that be more clear?
-
Your question is perfectly clear and your intent perfectly transparent.
You want me to say either YES or NO so that you can sping some clever trap response that you think will support your line of reasoning.
I know this and you know it too. So lets just cut the crap and tell me what's on your mind.
If I say YES your response is?
If I say NO your response is?
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Your question is perfectly clear and your intent perfectly transparent.
You want me to say either YES or NO so that you can sping some clever trap response that you think will support your line of reasoning.
I know this and you know it too. So lets just cut the crap and tell me what's on your mind.
If I say YES your response is?
If I say NO your response is?
I understand. You are afraid to answer because you are not sure of your posistion.
Ask me ANY question and I will answer.
-
Wow NUKE, what I'm really afraid of is this super clever trap response you will have for me if I answer the way you want me to. This response of yours will be so strong that I will have no way to overcome it and I will have to agree to your line of reasoning.
That is what I'm afraid of and it's exactly why I have been asking you nicely to just give that response.
Why are YOU afraid to say whats on your mind? You obviously have a prepared response and you are practically foam,ing at the mouth to give it. Why dont you?
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Ask me ANY question and I will answer.
OK lets see, I'll ask two.
1) What is your response if I answer YES to your question of:
Do you believe that matter can be created?
2) What is your response if I answer NO to your question of:
Do you believe that matter can be created?
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Wow NUKE, what I'm really afraid of is this super clever trap response you will have for me if I answer the way you want me to. This response of yours will be so strong that I will have no way to overcome it and I will have to agree to your line of reasoning.
That is what I'm afraid of and it's exactly why I have been asking you nicely to just give that response.
Why are YOU afraid to say whats on your mind? You obviously have a prepared response and you are practically foam,ing at the mouth to give it. Why dont you?
If you present a posistion, it seems like a no-brainer to back it up.
But you are afraid to back up your idea that matter can be created. Tell me I am wrong.
-
LOL!
Go ahead G, make my day. :D
-
Grun, be careful, the jaws of the trap are around your neck.
I imagine Nuke with the gun aimed, shouting:
"c'mon, answer me, YES or NO!!!???"
With a mad light in the eyes.
-
If our universe is the MA........I wonder what the beta musta been like.Is TOD the afterlife???
-
OK, lets step back a sec.
Prove there is a god?
Drop preconceptions, try thought experiment.
IF a god existed, and it sought companionship of beings which FREELY CHOSE to be "friends" with it, COULD it provide incontrovertable proof? The combination of great power and proven existance would cause choice to be warped by self preservation instincts.
Second, if freely chosen companionship was the goal, the deity would have to allow choice . If there was no freedom to choose, because of divine intervention to prevent evil, the entire purpose of the exercise would be defeated. Therefore, in this thought experiment, an all powerful god could rationally allow evil choices in its world.
Don't treat questioning the origin of matter as sophistry -- if there is a trap in the question, could the "trap" reflect the reality of the problem, whcih may not have an answer for the pure materialist? If universes need to collide to creat matter, where did the universes come from?
Lastly, if there is no God, there is no absolute. If there is no absolute morality, there can be no "good" or "evil" -- just socially determined conventions, chosen collectively by each society. No one morality can be "better" than the other, for there can be no yardstick to compare them with.
So, how can the agnostic beleive the Hitlers are evil? At worst, they can be dysfunctional in attaining their society's goals. Hitler's blaming the Jews was part of his revitalization of the German economy and morale. So please explain -- how can you materialists call genocidal mass murdering bigots "bad" as opposed to just unsuccessful?
I'm going to be at work all day, so if there are posts I wont answr till later.
-
Okay, back to the original topic. Why did God create man? There is one theory that basically says that God created man in His image to see if the end result would be beings like himself. He did this because He does not know His origin. The big problem with this theory is it implies that God is not perfect, that there are things that He does not know.
-
Why did God creat humans?
This is not a religious debate
You can't ask why did God create humans without bringing religion immediately in it. You must ask why do humans exist, leaving God out of the equation.
As what goes to the 'matter out of nothing' debate, a new line of physics called the string theory predicts that there are at least 6 different parallel dimensions. If more dimensions do exist but we just can't see them or prove by experiments, one possible scenario could be with matter shifting through one dimension to the other, thereby creating matter 'out of nothing.'
The string theorists believe they have answers to the things which relativity and quantum science can't yet explain.
Edit: Looks like Wotan already addressed the first part, sorry.
So, how can the agnostic beleive the Hitlers are evil? At worst, they can be dysfunctional in attaining their society's goals. Hitler's blaming the Jews was part of his revitalization of the German economy and morale. So please explain -- how can you materialists call genocidal mass murdering bigots "bad" as opposed to just unsuccessful?
Well they ARE starting to wash the image of Stalin back in russia again.
-
And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
I guess it was bout time after all the darkness & lonelynes?
We are his childrens, and what have we done first ? we eat up
from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, even it was forbidden.
i would say we started very entertaining ;)
-
Before science could explain the sun, it was a god.
Before science could explain volcanos, earthquakes, floods, swarms of insects etc they were the work of one god or another depending on local custom.
Science cannot currently explain the existence of matter or the creation of the universe; to some, it's a hypothesis or an educated guess while to others it's god.
Thinking along these lines, I really wish I could get a glimpse of a future world and how it might or might not be different from the one we live in today. After all, over the last few thousands of years, the study and manipulation of our universe has turned alot of "I believe" into alot of "I know". Is it possible that knowledge may eventually supplant religion entirely?
-
I don't believe we have the mental processing power to truly understand such things.
That includes the true nature of "god." Who created god? When? How? What was there before god? What did he do before he created us? How big are the heavens, how long is forever? We are left with blind faith and “because I say so” validations.
That is similar for current science. The infinity of space and time, the creation of something from nothing (is it really "nothing"?) what happened before the big bang... etc. Easy to grasp broadly, but outside of any experiential construct we are familiar with. I understand that if I put my hand in boiling water it will be burned. I can understand the scientific principals that make that happen, visualize the physical and biological process. There is no infinity involved, and we live finite existences and live in a finite environment..
I do believe that current formal man-made religions are no more substantial than the pagan religions they displaced, and are behind the curve where science is concerned (Noah's Ark, etc.). That doesn't mean there isn't a god, just that our current versions seem to be founded on Paleolithic - Iron Age superstitions, the understanding of a hierarchy system (peasant vs. king) and philosophies that make mortality more palatable.
I think that the true answer to such infinite questions is beyond our reach, just like where the picture on the TV comes from is beyond my Dogs intellectual reach (even though he has some broad understanding of TV). Just how far beyond is a good question with no ready answer.
Charon
-
Nuke, reason (logic) and faith are two different belief systems. They are incompatible, no one can logically prove the existance of God.
One must take the illogical leap of faith to believe. Jesus even noted "blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe."
So having a logical discussion about religion is a self contained contradiction.
However, I did hear once of a man, Hans Grapje, who was raised in a Catholic school in The Hague.
As a young man, aspired to become a priest, but was drafted into the Army during WWII and spent two years copiloting B17's until his aircraft was shot down in 1943, when he lost his left arm. Captain Grapje spent the rest of the war as a chaplain, giving spiritual aid to soldiers, both Allied and enemy.
After the war, he became a priest, serving as a missionary in Africa, piloting his own plane (in spite of his handicap) to villages across the continent. In 1997, Father Grapje was serving in Zimbabwe when an explosion in a silver mine caused a cave-in. Archbishop Grapje went down into the mine to administer last rights to those too severely injured to move. Another shaft collapsed, and he was buried for three days, suffering multiple injuries, including the loss of his right eye. The high silver content in the mine's air gave him -purpura-, a life-long condition characterized by purplish skin blotches.
Although Cardinal Grapje devoted his life to the service of God as a scholar, mentor and holy man, church leaders agree: He will never ascend to the Papacy.
No one wants a one-eyed, one-armed, flying purple Papal leader.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
This is not a religious debate, so please refrain from that. This is a philosophical question.
Why did God create man?
God had created angels and all of the universe. Have you ever wondered why God had the desire to create man? It seems like God would have no needs or a need to create man for any reason.
If God is all knowing, like I believe, he must have known that man would wind up sinning against his laws and would require his intervention in order to avoid eternal damnation, hell, which God must have created knowing that Lucifer and some men would end up going to.
So why create man? Just curious if anyone has a good answer for that. Are we like his beloved pets?
Good post, Simaril. I'm probably going to regret stepping into this, but here's my belief: God created humans for the same reason I wanted to have children of my own. If God truly created man in his image, than we likely share with Him some if not all the same emotional motivations. This includes the desire to build a family to love and be loved in return, and to see those children grow to their full potential. I want to see my children grow and learn, to be successful, but I know they need to do much of this on their own. If I make all the decisions for them, and never let them learn some lessons for themselves, they will never reach the level of maturity I hope for them. Sure, I'll try to impart some wisdom and guidelines when they're young, but for them to take the final steps into adulthood, I've got to let them try it on their own. God has said, according to scriptural references, that we can become like Him someday. In short, I believe coming to earth, to experience physical life, is part of that process.
-
No one wants a one-eyed, one-armed, flying purple Papal leader.
I can report with certainty that hot coffee spewed thru sinus passages is far from painless.
-
I do believe that current formal man-made religions are no more substantial than the pagan religions they displaced, and are behind the curve where science is concerned (Noah's Ark, etc.). That doesn't mean there isn't a god, just that our current versions seem to be founded on Paleolithic - Iron Age superstitions, the understanding of a hierarchy system (peasant vs. king) and philosophies that make mortality more palatable.
Amen brother.:aok
-
Originally posted by Simaril
OK, lets step back a sec.
Prove there is a god?
Drop preconceptions, try thought experiment.
IF a god existed, and it sought companionship of beings which FREELY CHOSE to be "friends" with it, COULD it provide incontrovertable proof? The combination of great power and proven existance would cause choice to be warped by self preservation instincts.
The bible shows that god did provide incrontrovertable proof of his existance several times.
For example,
Matt. 3:15, "And a voice from heaven said, 'This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased."
-
Quick check.. have all the bases been covered, and can I avoid reading this drivel... er ... thread?
-
I think the best result of this Fishing Expedition has been Sandman's thread on Omnipotence.
-
Ummm Nuke, I assume that the standing rules you set, forbid me from entering into this discussion. Probably all for the best...
So I guess, I'll just say errr... Hello?
- SEAGOON
-
Originally posted by Torque
god is male, he has a sexual organ, what does he use it fer?
God'd hit it....
(http://www.truecatholic.org/pix/marymirc.jpg)
-
Just to irritate me.
-
:rofl @ Skuzzy
-
Skuzzy, I don't know what did to deserve this kind of Hell but it must have been a whopper.
-
Nuke is a nazi.
BAM GODWIN'ED BIOTCH!
-
Originally posted by myelo
Skuzzy, I don't know what did to deserve this kind of Hell but it must have been a whopper.
I have often said, "what comes around, goes around". I have no idea what I did, but it must be right up there with being the creator of Barney, or something.
-
HAHAHA Skuzzy Banned God himself...All kneel down and ask for mercy and then hit the check6 forums to piss and moan.:rofl :rofl :rofl
-
God created man as a form of comic entertainment. First, he gave us all we needed to do everything right and live in harmony. Then, he invented the "conservative gene" and inserted it into our DNA. Then he created the "liberal gene" and inserted it into our DNA. Then, he grabbed a bag of popcorn, a 6 pack of PBR, sat back in his easy-throne and has been laughing his arnold off every since.
...oh, and pr0n, that too.
:D
-
Originally posted by NUKE
why is the sky blue? It's because light is refracted, filtered and reflected in the earths atmosphere.
Zebera's stripes are just a matter of genetics, like any animals coloring.
Now, why did God create humans? :D
ok let me rephrase.
It is almost as stupid as asking those questions.
-
Originally posted by VOR
Before science could explain the sun, it was a god.
Before science could explain volcanos, earthquakes, floods, swarms of insects etc they were the work of one god or another depending on local custom.
Science cannot currently explain the existence of matter or the creation of the universe; to some, it's a hypothesis or an educated guess while to others it's god.
Thinking along these lines, I really wish I could get a glimpse of a future world and how it might or might not be different from the one we live in today. After all, over the last few thousands of years, the study and manipulation of our universe has turned alot of "I believe" into alot of "I know". Is it possible that knowledge may eventually supplant religion entirely?
Some call this the "god of the gaps" approach. And yes, many limit their thoughts of "proofs" to the explanation of the unexplained. I agree that this is inadequate.
originally posted by Hangtime
cripes.. if a competent educated adult equipped with basic observation skills can eyeball the world human situtation in general or in detail and still believe that god is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent, I have got a heluva deal on a slightly used bridge for him.
No checks, please. Cash only and in small bills
See my last post. Any comments?
originally posted by Hangtime
Nuke hate to drop a dookie in yer cream of wheat, but 'religionists' just ain't capable of reasoned debate. Another cranky old man put it like this:
"The most ridiculous concept ever perpetrated by H.Sapiens is that the Lord God of Creation, Shaper and Ruler of the Universes, wants the sacharrine adoration of his creations, that he can be persuaded by their prayers, and becomes petulant if he does not recieve this flattery. Yet this ridiculous notion, without one real shred of evidence to bolster it, has gone on to found one of the oldest, largest and least productive industries in history.
Frankly, potatos perform the same function as priests, but far more thoroughly."
Have a nice day!
OK, I'm open for rational debate. And whoever this "grumpy old man" is, I suggest that he (and those who share his biases) are choosing to forget many of their intellectual forebears. I challenge anyone to say that Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, Pascal, and (to fast foreward to the 20th century) C.S. Lewis were idiots. I guess I msut assume that you, Hangtime, have never read their works -- because if you had, you couldnt possibly believe that it is impossible to be intellectual and believe at the same time.
Your grumpy old amn has chosen a particulary inflammatory, biased way to describe faith. History is full of power hungry, Machiavellian people who have used cultural structures (including the church) for their own purposes. This does not reflect the real core of religion, any more than the Oklahoma City bombers refelcted teh AMerican values they claimed to honor with their terrorism.
Many who claim to be religious treat their relationship with god like a pocket talisman, and not surprisingly they show little or no life impact. They give people of faith a bad name. The God who presents himself in Chrstianity cannot be shoved into a tidy box, though even most believers try to shrink him to a controllable size. It won't work.
But look at the lives of those who truly live what they claim to believe. Tell the beneficiaries of Mother Theresa's mission that she was the product of the "least productive industry in history." There are thousands of "religious" inner city "rescue" groups, overseas mission hospitals, and relief organizations across the world today, and the compassionate sacrifices of their workers are a direct outgrowth of their faith. The slve trade, and slavery itself, were banned in England and the US only by the vigorous efforts fo Christians. (While US southern slave owners claimed biblical backing for their crimes, they were clearly incorrect: Their "proofs" relied on snippets taken selctively, and required willfully ignoring large chunks of teachings.)
One could easily argue, in fact, that the scientific and cultural growth of the entire Western world finds its basis in Christian philosophy. Christianity, and its forebear Judaism, were the first religions to teach that the world and its forces were the products of an intelligent, understandable designer -- and not the side effects of polytheistic or aministic feuds and forces. This assumption of consistanccy and comprehensibility formed a necessary foundation for scientific exploration, and the thought processes it engendered (including the value of the individual regardless of station) are an irrevocable cultural heritage.
end text wall
-
Always thought religion causes more problems in the world today and throughout history then anything. Good reason during the time the church ruled England it was refered to as the "Dark Ages"
"Religions are all alike - founded upon fables and mythologies."
Thomas Jefferson
...-Gixer
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
An openminded religionist? Horsepucky, Nuke. You and about 56 million other religion cultists just love whackin away at folks like myself that are quite happy with the universe; unexplained. Peddle yer tripe to weakminded folks that require answers to the unanswerable (by current scientific acclimation)....
Their doubtless are "weakminded folks" who use faith as a crutch for the unanswerable in their lives. But you are being a bigot when you paint all who believe as "weakminded religious cultists."
Deitrich Bonhoffer was weakminded? CS Lewis, who was the first man to ever be top of all Oxford students (a "first") in English, Greek and Latin, and Philosophy and Ancient History? Gregor Mendel? Martin Luther? While we're at it, MArtin Luther King? Blaise Pascal? William F. Buckley (forget his politics -- look at his intellect)?
Forget your assumptions and biases -- because you have rejected the existance of a god, does that mean he does not exist? Because you are comfortable with a cosmology that does not include a deity, does it follow that others with different a priori assumptions are idiots?
-
Originally posted by Gixer
Always thought religion causes more problems in the world today and throughout history then anything. Good reason during the time the church ruled England it was refered to as the "Dark Ages"
"Religions are all alike - founded upon fables and mythologies."
Thomas Jefferson
...-Gixer
Well, if Jefferson said it, it must be true!
Wait, he said "all men are created equal and are endowed with inalienable rights..." while he owned slaves....:lol
I'd argue that self centeredness, not religion, causes the effects you decry. Selfish people can use religion as an excuse or cover for their power hungry acts, and because they're selfish they dont care if they besmirch the reputation of faith. They can take control of organizations, and create strife where none should be.
But look at the lives of people who truly live what their faith teaches. After all, they're the ones who reflect what the religion actually teaches. I dare you to find someone who lives the life Jesus taught yet makes the world a worse place.
-
"I dare you to find someone who lives the life Jesus taught yet makes the world a worse place."
Well we could start of with the Pope if you like.
...-Gixer
-
Originally posted by Gixer
"I dare you to find someone who lives the life Jesus taught yet makes the world a worse place."
Well we could start of with the Pope if you like.
...-Gixer
What example did you have in mind? I honestly dont know enough of him to say much, but I'd be interested in your view of how he made the world worse.
Or were you thinkning of Mother Theresa?
-
Originally posted by Simaril
Well, if Jefferson said it, it must be true!
Well, if it's in the bible, it must be true!
Wait, he said "all men are created equal and are endowed with inalienable rights..." while he owned slaves....:lol
I don't imagine anyone arguing the validity of the bible should be casting stones about consistancy.
-
Hey I godwin'ed this thread dammit. :mad:
The Pope is a Nazi. Was.. err?? whatever.
-
Originally posted by Simaril
Lastly, if there is no God, there is no absolute. If there is no absolute morality, there can be no "good" or "evil" -- just socially determined conventions, chosen collectively by each society. No one morality can be "better" than the other, for there can be no yardstick to compare them with.
If the bible is interpreted different ways by different people, than how is it's utility as a moral yardstick any better or worse than any other? We have certainly seen people's interpretation of the bible to justify all kinds of "evils".
Hey Nuke, I'll go out on a limb. If the experiments are such as Grunherz described them, then yes matter can be created out of nothing (or at least out of something we don't understand yet).
-
Originally posted by Simaril
What example did you have in mind? I honestly dont know enough of him to say much, but I'd be interested in your view of how he made the world worse.
Or were you thinkning of Mother Theresa?
Well for one his ban of condoms and contraception. And the cost of hundreds of thousands of lives through the spread of AIDS.
....-Gixer
-
Originally posted by Gixer
Well for one his ban of condoms and contraception. And the cost of hundreds of thousands of lives through the spread of AIDS.
....-Gixer
For every fault you find they'll explain it as a misinterpretation by man... ;) . Either that or "he has a plan for us all".
-
OK, I'm open for rational debate. And whoever this "grumpy old man" is, I suggest that he (and those who share his biases) are choosing to forget many of their intellectual forebears. I challenge anyone to say that Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, Pascal, and (to fast foreward to the 20th century) C.S. Lewis were idiots. I guess I msut assume that you, Hangtime, have never read their works -- because if you had, you couldnt possibly believe that it is impossible to be intellectual and believe at the same time.
See.. there yah go again.. diving right into the cultist capability of knowing exactly what's motivationg an intellectual mind... in your early examples the choice they had was a publicly pious forbearance of religious drivel or death as a heritc or witch. In your latter examples you include me in believing that it's not possible to entertain faith in the same brain as brilliance.
I've never understood how God could expect His creatures to pick the one true religion by faith - it strikes me as a sloppy way to run a universe; which leads us to this unhappy lil data point.. religious zealotry has killed more people than any natural disaster.. including those that were attributed to 'god'.
History Lesson: Don't appeal to mercy to God the Father up in the sky to save youself, your nation or your loved ones because 'god' is not at home and never was at home, and couldn't care less.
What we do with ouselves and our lives, whether we are happy or unhappy-- live or die-- is strictly our business and the universe et al just doesn't care. In fact, you are your own universe and as such should be held accountable as the only cause of all your troubles. At best, the most any of us can hope for is comradeship with comrades no more divine (or just as divine) as the next guy... So quit sniveling and face up to it-- 'Thou art God!'
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
If the bible is interpreted different ways by different people, than how is it's utility as a moral yardstick any better or worse than any other? We have certainly seen people's interpretation of the bible to justify all kinds of "evils".
Thrawn, you've ignored the main point -- the inability of the relativist to issue moral condemnation of obvious evil like Hitler's -- to make a realtivistic stab at the bible. The point isnt how people choose to take the bible, its what the bible actually says.
When the book is taken as a whole, the various interpretations are questions of shading, not of core message. That alone makes your question spurious. Do any honest interpretaions of the bible cliam that it teaches murder is good? That we should take what we can while we can, that might makes right?
We've all seen the trick whereby people can snip individual words or phrases from an article to make it seem to say something very different than was really there. The same is commonly done with the bible; but I've yet to see the unified themes of the bible, or its specific teachings (by topic, not by snipped edits) result in evil.
-
Originally posted by Simaril
Thrawn, you've ignored the main point -- the inability of the relativist to issue moral condemnation of obvious evil like Hitler's -- to make a realtivistic stab at the bible. The point isnt how people choose to take the bible, its what the bible actually says.
When the book is taken as a whole, the various interpretations are questions of shading, not of core message. That alone makes your question spurious. Do any honest interpretaions of the bible cliam that it teaches murder is good? That we should take what we can while we can, that might makes right?
We've all seen the trick whereby people can snip individual words or phrases from an article to make it seem to say something very different than was really there. The same is commonly done with the bible; but I've yet to see the unified themes of the bible, or its specific teachings (by topic, not by snipped edits) result in evil.
What.. it takes religous training to recognize morality? That the diffrence between 'bad' and 'evil' are mutually exclusive by definition without a religionist to filter it for us?
Re: the bible.. see my previous. Anybody can argue anything, prove anything by quoting passages outta that revisionist re-write of the history of mans tribal incompatibility with the folks next door.
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
See.. there yah go again.. diving right into the cultist capability of knowing exactly what's motivationg an intellectual mind... in your early examples the choice they had was a publicly pious forbearance of religious drivel or death as a heritc or witch. In your latter examples you include me in believing that it's not possible to entertain faith in the same brain as brilliance....
'
Maybe I'm missing something here, but I'm having trouble following your argument.
You seem to be confusing your history, at the very least, because Augustine lived in the Roman Empire during a time when only about 1/5 was Christian. Constantine had stopped teh persecution of Christians forty years before, but no one was persecuted for being a pagan in Augustines time. Aquinas was a medieval scholar of prodgious intellect, whose PRIMARY efforts were spent exploring the philosophic underpinnings of Christian faith. He lived over 200 years before the inquisition, which (it appears) seems to form your central picture of pre-reformation Christianity.
I guess I'm having troubel seeing where that intellectual mind of yours is making its appearance....
Are you honestly saying that Augustine and Aquinas didnt believe the core of their lives' work? (BTW, I am not catholic)
And, about your comment that I was "diving into the motivations of the intellectual mind" -- forgive me for making the assumption, but I took your calling believers "weakminded religious cultists" to mean that you thought they weren't intellectuals. If this was a misunderstanding, please clarify for me how you intended these words to be taken.
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
What.. it takes religous training to recognize morality? That the diffrence between 'bad' and 'evil' are mutually exclusive by definition without a religionist to filter it for us?
Re: the bible.. see my previous. Anybody can argue anything, prove anything by quoting passages outta that revisionist re-write of the history of mans tribal incompatibility with the folks next door.
Hangtime, I think you're missing the point. I'm not saying that only the religious can tell what's right or wrong -- I'm saying that if everything is realtive, if there is no absolute, then no individual can describe anyone else's behavior as wrong!
If there is no meaning to life, if there is no such thing as an extra-dimensional frame of reference, then morality becomes a social convention an nothing more.
In other words, the materialist is left in the intolerable position of saying that Hitlers only problem was that he was outvoted.
If he had stayed allied with Stalin, and if the axis had won, then genocide would be the socially acceptable "norm" for most of the earth's surface. It would have been a moral right, because that's what the predominant society chose as its foundation.
Is that the moral world you want to profess? If not, on what BASIS do you choose to call Hitler evil?
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
snip
Re: the bible.. see my previous. Anybody can argue anything, prove anything by quoting passages outta that revisionist re-write of the history of mans tribal incompatibility with the folks next door.
Have you actually read this book you're trashing? you're throwing some incredibly intense verbiage around; on what do you base this description? You've claimed internal contradictions -- what are they?
What data backs up your calling the bible a "revisionist re-write?"
While I agree that the tabloid headline approach to doctrine can make anything SEEM to be biblical, I woudl strongly argue that what the bible actually does say -- when one takes the effort of clarifying passages that could be taken several ways, by reading other passages on the same topic -- is pretty clear, extraordinarily consistant, and generally approved as a pretty good way to look at life.
-
I'm questioning your faith...
Demonstrate "God"; the current model please. The resale value on the pre & post revisonist models is comming in at under book value as of late.
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
I'm questioning your faith...
Demonstrate "God"; the current model please. The resale value on the pre & post revisonist models is comming in at under book value as of late.
Ummmmmm............
very cute soundbite, but I guess it looks like a politician's master bob-and-weave technique to me.
How about answering the issues above first, some of which you raised -- and to which I responded?
-
Originally posted by Gixer
Well for one his ban of condoms and contraception. And the cost of hundreds of thousands of lives through the spread of AIDS.
....-Gixer
Once you said "the pope", I was caught by a problem: first, I dont know anything about his life except what the media tells me, although it appears that by most accounts the guy's done a lot of good; second, that his responsibility to his institution may distort the effect of his personal life.
For example, the pope chose to deal with the US priest scandal in a way that weighed forgiveness to the priests over the damage done to the abused parishoners.
I put out a challenge that I honestly cant fully defend, because I dont know the lives of the people that will come up. Of course, I had in mind people like Jim Elliot, Dr. Stanley Livingston, Wibur Wilberforce, etc.
-
Originally posted by Skuzzy
I have often said, "what comes around, goes around". I have no idea what I did, but it must be right up there with being the creator of Barney, or something.
I have it on good authority that you created the TeleTubbies.
-
Originally posted by Gixer
Well for one his ban of condoms and contraception. And the cost of hundreds of thousands of lives through the spread of AIDS.
....-Gixer
For one, the Pope never twisted anyones arm to have sex. Second the Pope (and the Bible) say premarital sex is not to be engaged in. They also say to not engage in affairs. If you follow the first two, aids is never a problem. Blaming the Pope for hundreds of thousands of aids victims is rediculous.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Why did God create man?
Who says he did? There's absolutely no evidence to support that claim.
ack-ack
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
I have it on good authority that you created the TeleTubbies.
Now that is just wrong. Although,...how about the BBTubbies? :D
-
Originally posted by Elfie
For one, the Pope never twisted anyones arm to have sex. Second the Pope (and the Bible) say premarital sex is not to be engaged in. They also say to not engage in affairs. If you follow the first two, aids is never a problem. Blaming the Pope for hundreds of thousands of aids victims is rediculous.
More rediculous is your expectation of people to follow those rules. Maybe you should visit Sao Paulo and see for yourself the effects that the Popes rule is having on the people there.
And yes it's easy to blame the Pope for 100,000's AIDS victims and history will record it as his bigges mistake.
...-Gixer
-
Originally posted by Ack-Ack
Who says he did? There's absolutely no evidence to support that claim.
ack-ack
Origins by their very nature can be examined only by inference; no matter how things started, no one was there to see it (if you a priori leave a god out of the equation).
SO proof isnt really the appropriate standard.
However, a question: entropy, a basic and unchallengeable principle of physics, shows that closed systems move from states of higher energy and complexity to lower states of both.
Assuming that the known universe is a closed system, without outside interference, how does life tehn move from lower states of complexity containing smaller reserves of organized energy to higher states of each?
Just askin
-
How many years ago was God suppose to of created man anyway? Of course assuming we are talking about "the" God as all other gods don't exist in their eyes. :lol
...-Gixer
-
This has gone way off topic, but what the hey.....
If you want proof of anything regarding the origin of the universe or God, you are not going to get it in your lifetime
The way I look at it, there are only two explanations for the existence of all matter.
1. it always existed
2. it was created from nothing.
Science cannot explain in any logical way either example. When someone does try to explain either one of those examples, they sound just as "crazy" as someone who believes God created the universe.
Chew on that.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
OK lets see, I'll ask two.
1) What is your response if I answer YES to your question of:
Do you believe that matter can be created?
2) What is your response if I answer NO to your question of:
Do you believe that matter can be created?
If you say yes, that matter can be created, then I'd have to ask how or where that has ever been proven.
If you say no, that matter cannot be created, I'd have to ask how science can account for or explain the existence of matter.
My point being that science has no asnwer for either that makes any sense. I wasn't trying to corner you into a position.
It goes back to my belief that it's just as logical to belief that God created all matter as it is to belief any other explanation.
-
No Nuke.
You see quantum theory mathemetically predicted that it would be possible to have particles appear out of nothing.
When the technologyu came about, experiments were conducted and guess what? They noticed that particles did simply appear out of nothing.
You cant do that with God.
God and faith are not science, you can do nothing to prove either true or false or logical.
With science yoiu can - and this mathematical idea of matter appearing out of nothing is a scientifically proven fact.
-
Grun, did the experiment prove that matter was created from nothing, or did it just say that particles "appear" out of nothing?
in other words, was it proven that matter can be created ?
-
it pops into existance from nothing.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
it pops into existance from nothing.
well, I know that's what you keep saying, but I am asking if the experiment is regarded as proof that matter can be created.
-
Grun, do you have a link or a name for this experiment you speak of?
I would be interested in reading up on it.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
You see quantum theory mathemetically predicted that it would be possible to have particles appear out of nothing.
Don't you mean that it was predicted that engery can be converted to matter and vis versa?
Created from nothing?
-
Originally posted by NUKE
well, I know that's what you keep saying, but I am asking if the experiment is regarded as proof that matter can be created.
Nothing meaning vacume or the void has to be rethought. Based on the article below, energy from a reaction was used to force particles to appear. Matter is after all a state of energy.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3 July 2003
Understanding More About "Nothing"
Measurements taken using Jefferson Lab's CEBAF Large Acceptance Spectrometer (CLAS) are telling us more about how matter is produced from "nothing," that is, the vacuum. Using the CLAS in Hall B, Daniel S. Carman of Ohio University and nearly 150 members of the CLAS Collaboration studied the spin transfer from a polarized electron beam to a produced Lambda particle. Their results were recently published in Physical Review Letters.
The CLAS experimenters collided JLab's polarized electron beam into a proton target, producing a polarized Lambda (?0) and a kaon (K ). Physicists have long known that matter and anti-matter can be created when energetic particles strike one another. The new particles are not really created from "nothing." They are created from the available kinetic energy of the colliding particles. Visualize a bowling ball hitting its rack of 10 pins so hard that the 10 pins turn into 11 normal pins and one "anti-pin." Energy is conserved and so is matter; that's why a new anti-matter particle is created each time a matter particle is created.
In a simple quark model of the reaction dynamics, a circularly polarized virtual photon strikes an oppositely polarized up quark inside the proton . The spin of the struck quark flips in direction and the quark recoils from its neighbors, stretching a flux-tube of gluonic matter between them. When the stored energy in the flux-tube is sufficient, the tube is "broken" by production of a strange quark-antiquark pair. Using this simple picture, the researchers could explain the angular dependence of the Lambda polarization if the quark pair was produced with the spins in opposite directions, or anti-aligned.
These anti-aligned spins could throw theorists into a spin. According to the popular triplet-P-zero (3P0) model, a quark-antiquark pair is produced with vacuum quantum numbers, and that means their spins should be aligned. These results imply that the 3P0 model may not be as widely applicable as was thought.
Winston Roberts, a theorist at Jefferson Lab and associate professor of physics at Old Dominion University, finds the CLAS measurement very interesting. "If they are right, it means we have to rethink what we thought we understood about our models for baryon decays," he says. "The CLAS results may also be saying something about what we understand of baryons themselves -- our knowledge of how to describe scattering processes such as the one they measure, or even that there may be oddities, peculiarities, dare I say 'strangeness,' in the way strange quark-antiquark pairs are produced."
The experimenters expect further reaction from theorists. "Polarized Lambda production is obviously sensitive to the spin-dynamics of quark-pair creation," says Mac Mestayer, a JLab staff scientist, and one of the lead authors on the paper. "We eagerly await confirmation, or refutation, of the conclusions of our simple model by realistic theoretical calculations."
Meanwhile, Carman adds, the researchers are planning further experiments. "Our group is continuing this exciting research by extending our arguments to test our picture of the dynamics in different reactions."
These results show that we have much still to learn about the basic structure of the vacuum. One hundred years ago the vacuum was thought to consist of an "ether" through which light propagated as waves. Albert Michelson, Edward Morley, Albert Einstein and others disproved this hypothesis and the vacuum became an empty void. Twentieth century quantum field theories have now filled this once-empty space with virtual particles. It's now obvious that a vacuum is not the cold, empty place it was once thought to be. JLab physicists and researchers are studying the spin of the produced quarks in hopes of understanding the vacuum better, as well as the matter that populates it.
-
Thanks bustr.
I guess the experiment verified that engery can be converted to matter, but that the conservation of matter and energy is constant.
Therefore, matter has not been proven to have been created from nothing.
-
Quite amusing watching you guys discuss this.
...-Gixer
-
Mr arrogant New Zealander has arrived to offer his arrogance, and nothing else. How refreshing.
-
None of this answers the question of the original origion of energy and matter. This experiment holds suggestions that matter came after energy. But then what is energy and from wence it came? Proving it with the scientific method is like attempting to get from point A to point B by traversing half the distance between and half the remaining distance each time you move.
As science traverses the half distances with each discovery, our abillity to mold the universe will become more god like with each step. But then will we with our science traverse the last full distance and be god, able to create "life" from the voids fabric with a spirit in our own image?
If you say yes to this scientific ability possibly happening in the future at some point, you make the same leap of faith and intuition that is made by those who belive god created the universe. We cannot prove either but with our faith in our beleif.
-
Originally posted by Simaril
Origins by their very nature can be examined only by inference; no matter how things started, no one was there to see it (if you a priori leave a god out of the equation).
SO proof isnt really the appropriate standard.
However, a question: entropy, a basic and unchallengeable principle of physics, shows that closed systems move from states of higher energy and complexity to lower states of both.
Assuming that the known universe is a closed system, without outside interference, how does life tehn move from lower states of complexity containing smaller reserves of organized energy to higher states of each?
Just askin
Gixer responds:
Originally posted by Gixer
How many years ago was God suppose to of created man anyway? Of course assuming we are talking about "the" God as all other gods don't exist in their eyes.
Does this seem...ummm...an unusual debate technique?
Q: explain origins in light of entropy?
A: What time is it, anyway?
:rofl :rofl :rofl
-
Possibly he has defined a loose rule of biological life in this universe. As long as the cells are alive performing their function, they aspire to a higher level of energy.
-
bustr, I fond it funny that some people look down their noses at people who believe that God created everything, then go right ahead and believe science has a more logical explanation. It doesn't.
It comes down to two possible choices
1. matter/energy always existed
2. matter/engery was created from nothing.
Note I added energy because science considers the sum of energy and matter a constant and fixed in value. Niether can be created or destroyed, they can only change states...with the total sum always constant.
So, how are they going to explain the existence of matter?
It is in no way less logical to speculate that God created all matter than it is for science to say it was created from nothing, or just always existed.
-
Science gives them control over the out come here and now for the length of their life span.
Religion requires faith that the outcome will be what the dogma promises.
I don't see either as a very easy path to follow because the end comes to both camps just the same. Then it's over..................?
Origion of the Universe.........
Sience - Our ego is satisfied by saying give me enough time and research I will find the answer. A proactive state of searching for the beginning.
Religion - I beleive in the begining God created it. Our ego has problems with this and is why we have to work at faith all the time. Religion talks about miricles. Possibly these are like the realtime results science can generate to satisfy the ego here and now. Not being a repeatable phenominon, science's ego is not amused.
I wish both camps would respect each other a tad bit more. Neither really has the answer except as blind faith in the experience. I find that faith in both camps to be their true strength.
-
Originally posted by Simaril
Gixer responds: Does this seem...ummm...an unusual debate technique?
Not a debate I was just asking what should be a simple question for any christian to answer.
...-Gixer
-
Originally posted by Gixer
Not a debate I was just asking what should be a simple question for any christian to answer.
...-Gixer
The bible doesn't say how many years ago God created man.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
The bible doesn't say how many years ago God created man.
What not even within a few thousand years or so? That's pretty weak isn't it?
...-Gixer
-
Originally posted by Gixer
What not even within a few thousand years or so? That's pretty weak isn't it?
...-Gixer
I don't get it, what's weak about it? It's has no bearing on the message of God's word.
-
Originally posted by Gixer
More rediculous is your expectation of people to follow those rules. Maybe you should visit Sao Paulo and see for yourself the effects that the Popes rule is having on the people there.
And yes it's easy to blame the Pope for 100,000's AIDS victims and history will record it as his bigges mistake.
...-Gixer
The Bible says adultery (extra-marital sex) and fornication (sex outside wedlock) is wrong. The Pope reiterates those things. Is it the Pope's fault if people disregard what he and the Bible say? No. It's the fault of the people who didnt listen.
Blaming the Pope for people who choose to have sex outside the marriage bed is totally rediculous. You are taking just one point of the entire subject (no contraception) and using that to justify blaming ONE man for the mistakes of hundreds of thousands of other people.
The Pope is just the leader of the Catholic church, he doesnt "rule" anyone.
*edit* Blaming the Pope just puts responsiblity for ones own actions somewhere other than where it belongs......on ones own shoulders.
-
Oh look! someone played the entropy card...
move back five spaces and google for your punishment.
:aok
-
HAVE U EVER WONDERED IF GOD WAS ENERGY...(not that star wars crap either)
IF god always has, always is, and always will BE,
AND...
ENERGY IS THE OLNY THING THAT CANNOT BE CREATED OR DESTRYOD
COULD THERE BE A CONNECTION????
I also think humans need a "GOD" that tells them how to live
(could have been created by humans)
IMAGINE no one having a religion...people wouldn't obey basic things like ppl will be killing eachother and stealing... no one will think this is wrong... no one would care that they did something wrong because there is no punishment NOR reward for being good in liffe
the world would be caios
SPADZ
-
Originally posted by SPADZ25
IMAGINE no one having a religion...people wouldn't obey basic things like ppl will be killing eachother and stealing... no one will think this is wrong... no one would care that they did something wrong because there is no punishment NOR reward for being good in liffe
the world would be caios
SPADZ
Sorry, but that statement could be said of those claiming the existence of God as well as those that do not.
Following the good and righteous path does not require a belief in a supreme being.
-
Einstein had an opinion about God. Anyone guess what Einstein has said about God?
-
Originally posted by DrDea
If our universe is the MA........I wonder what the beta musta been like.Is TOD the afterlife???
Not the afterlife, but more like hell for the sinners in the MA. :D I can think of quite a few I would like to see cast into the eternal damnation known in theory as TOD.
-
Einstein on God:
"From the viewpoint of a Jesuit Priest I am, of course, and have always been an atheist."
"I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religion than it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."
"I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own -- a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty. Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotism."
"I do not believe in the immortality of the individual, and I consider ethics to be an exclusively human concern with no superhuman authority behind it."
"If people are good only because they fear punishment, and hope for a reward, then we are a sorry lot indeed."
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Oh look! someone played the entropy card...
move back five spaces and google for your punishment.
:aok
Instructions followed. Penalty accepted.
For anyone interested in the topic -- from a scientific and faith perspective -- here's the most balanced link I found.
http://members.aol.com/steamdoc/writings/thermo.html
:aok
-
Ive been sitting here reading this entire thread, and I have to say....this is a keeper. I think some of the smartest, funniest people in the universe can be found on this board. You guys are the best....even you .. well, n/m....I'll just leave it at that.:rofl
-
Einstein on God:
"Certain it is that a conviction, akin to religious feeling, of the rationality and intelligibility of the world lies behind all scientific work of a higher order. The firm belief, which is bound up with deep feeling, in a superior mind revealing himself in the world of experience, represents my conception of God, which may, therefore be described in common parlance as `pantheistic' (Spinoza)."
"My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior Spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble minds. The deeply emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning Power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God"
"You will hardly find one among the profounder sort of scientific minds without a peculiar religious feeling of his own . . . .His religious feeling takes the form of a rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection"
"I'm not an atheist and I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many different languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see a universe marvellously arranged and obeying certain laws, but only dimly understand these laws. Our limited minds cannot grasp the mysterious force that moves the constellations. I am fascinated by Spinoza's pantheism, but admire even more his contributions to modern thought because he is the first philosopher to deal with the soul and the body as one, not two separate things "
"But, on the other hand, everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe-a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble. In this way the pursuit of science leads to a religious feeling of a special sort, which is indeed quite different from the religiosity of someone more naive."
Einstein did believe in a superior intelligence, but he did not believe in a "personal" God who concerns himself with the "petty" matters of mankind. He believed that the universe was God's perfect creation.
-
Originally posted by Gixer
Always thought religion causes more problems in the world today and throughout history then anything. Good reason during the time the church ruled England it was refered to as the "Dark Ages"
"Religions are all alike - founded upon fables and mythologies."
Thomas Jefferson
...-Gixer
Jefferson compiled his own edit of the bible.
http://www.angelfire.com/co/JeffersonBible/ (http://)
-
Originally posted by NUKE
This is not a religious debate, so please refrain from that. This is a philosophical question.
Why did God create man?
God had created angels and all of the universe. Have you ever wondered why God had the desire to create man? It seems like God would have no needs or a need to create man for any reason.
If God is all knowing, like I believe, he must have known that man would wind up sinning against his laws and would require his intervention in order to avoid eternal damnation, hell, which God must have created knowing that Lucifer and some men would end up going to.
So why create man? Just curious if anyone has a good answer for that. Are we like his beloved pets?
Muhehehee wait few more years and then you will face women priests and you will have to appologize for sutch silly question like "Why God created men".
Anyway i, as most of atheist belive, that men were beta version of women.
Edit: but what i realy do not understand is fact, that men isnt hermafrodit.
Coz if god were about to create men, why he should create something what can not reproduce itself.
Thats weird theme.
:rofl
-
For those of you who find it hard to believe the physics theory "nihilo nihil", that something can come from nothing, what materials did God use when he said "Let there be light".
If there were materials hanging around for God to use, who made them?
-
While it's all very interesting and commendable debate. I'm afraid my view is that God did not create man.
In fact man created God. Actually not one God but quite a few.
End of debate. Sorry.
-
not in fact, in opinion. Which is fine.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Thanks bustr.
I guess the experiment verified that engery can be converted to matter, but that the conservation of matter and energy is constant.
Therefore, matter has not been proven to have been created from nothing.
ahh so you say that it hasnt been proven while you arent able to proven us your god.
Muheheee... this seems to be an proper circle.
Can i tell you story about lighting storm and anger of gods ? :D
-
Originally posted by Simaril
OK, lets step back a sec.
Prove there is a god?
Drop preconceptions, try thought experiment.
IF a god existed, and it sought companionship of beings which FREELY CHOSE to be "friends" with it, COULD it provide incontrovertable proof? The combination of great power and proven existance would cause choice to be warped by self preservation instincts.
Second, if freely chosen companionship was the goal, the deity would have to allow choice . If there was no freedom to choose, because of divine intervention to prevent evil, the entire purpose of the exercise would be defeated. Therefore, in this thought experiment, an all powerful god could rationally allow evil choices in its world.
.........
snip
I don't really want to quote myself, but since the question came up twice in the same thread I guess it's justified.
If you consider the question theoretically, and for the sake of argument briefly grant me that there was a God, how could it both provide proof of its existance AND still allow freedom of choice without duress?
I really cant see an answer to that, but I'm willing to learn...
-
Originally posted by lada
ahh so you say that it hasnt been proven while you arent able to proven us your god.
Muheheee... this seems to be an proper circle.
Can i tell you story about lighting storm and anger of gods ? :D
Lada, you seem to not grasp what I have been saying. I offered no proof of God, just faith.
Science has offered no explanation for the existence of all the matter in the universe either, yet some people seem to believe that science has some better, more logical explanation.
I am saying that it is just as logical to believe that God created the universe as it is believe any scientific logic. Both views require faith in the unknown and unexplainable.
-
I have much more faith in science then God, isn't God just something made up in mans mind anyway? Plus which God are we talking about here? As there seems to be quite a few.
...-Gixer
-
Holden, don't you think it is logical to say that the big bang was an infinate series of events? So time always was.
Each event had to be preceded by another, logically speaking. You can't have an explosion or expansion of any sort without a trigger. That chain would go back to infinity.
Same logic with matter. Science has no logic that can explain it.
That's kind of what I am getting at.
I'm off to try to go do some work, I'd be interested in your ideas regarding the trigger for the big bang and the existence of matter.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
I am saying that it is just as logical to believe that God created the universe as it is believe any scientific logic. Both views require faith in the unknown and unexplainable.
I understand your thought here Nuke, but it is not quite correct.
If you use pure scientific logic and reason, scientific theory (which uses defined known laws and logic) traces back time to an infinitesimally small fraction of a second after the bang. That small fraction cannot be pierced by current scientific theory because general relativity and quantum theory collide.
Within that fraction no one knows the physics, it is a place for unscientific conjecture. As no one knows what happened before the collision of relativity and quantum, the big bang itself is in a hazy nether region.
The big bang seems plausible, perhaps, but is in reality an illogical step that requires an illogical, unscientific leap of faith..
Pure science is not a belief system... it is a process: a technique for revealing truth. People have convoluted science into a belief system that it was not intended to be.
-
Originally posted by Gixer
I have much more faith in science then God, isn't God just something made up in mans mind anyway? Plus which God are we talking about here? As there seems to be quite a few.
...-Gixer
Gixer, if you've already "proven" to your own satisfaction that there is no god, and that science is the only way to understand reality -- then you're right, god must have been something man made up.
But saying that doesnt prove anything at all.
The alternative worldview considers that there may be a god, and that it may have revealed itself to us one way or another. Christians believe that 1) God is real; 2) He revealed himself to us, because otherwise his transdimensional existance woudl be beyond or understanding; 3) He let us see what he thinks and what he's like by directly guiding the writers of the bible so their thoughts and words were expressions of him; 4) he further revealed himself by becoming man -- entering our dimension; and that 5) he demonstrated the depth of his love for us by paying the price of our failings, on his account.
Either cosmology can be seen to be internally consistant and compatible with the observed world. It really comes down to what we choose to believe. IN the end, only one view (and god) will be found to be reality. Despite post modern relativism, there really is such a thing as "true" and "false" -- cf. your most recent math test.
PS I will happily deal with challenges to Christianity's internal consistancy --line 'em up