Threaded Mode | Linear Mode

***blackbelt2003*** · 10-12-2012, 02:49 PM

lloyd mayflower Wrote:So let me ask you all a question. If god created the world, why then did he wait till a few hundred years ago to bestow upon us his son, and after his.son, the good book explaining it all to us? How did the writers of the stories arrive at the tales they spoke of, and further more, what was god up to while the ancient civilizations were worshipping different gods.

I mean, he created EVERYTHING yet it is only, in human terms at least, a very short time since he came to the fore. The notion of christianity is a very young one, but the notion of higher power is not, so why do people feel the need to conform to a book all of a sudden. Is it that humans have evolved so far with such intelligence and such curiousity that we simply cant accept our role on this earth is no greater than an earthwork or a penguin

To be honest, I don't know! I don't know why God would do that.

I know there are good reason to believe the Gospels. Well, I think they're good. There was a book I read a while back that covered all the aspects of the New Testament and it's authenticity.

I'll dig it out and have a quick re-read - I'll do it a vast injustice if I try to paraphrase it lol

One thing I have noticed though, is that many people do try to pigeon hole God into a certain box and view Him like a 6 year old; big man with a white beard, sitting in the clouds, etc, etc.

The thing is, I believe that the spiritual world is way past our comprehension. It doesn't have to use our laws of time and physics. If someone believes in a 'higher power', then I think they must agree. This is not a cop out answer, but I genuinely do believe that there is so much of this world we have no idea about. There are other realms, other ways of living.

If life is just one big accident; a mere chance of happenings; a fluke; with no rhyme or reason, no right or wrong, then many of today's topics and views are obsolete. An accident can't be right or wrong. A chance happening can't be right or wrong; it just.....'is'. It just exists in the moment. It just happens and life is a constant ongoing series of these 'things' that are a by product of a fluke...so they are in fact themselves, flukes; chance happenings. From when the first atoms collided, to the first planets being formed, to the first signs of life, to where we are now, just one big, long fluke. So that means all the things we view as right or wrong...well, are actually neither right or wrong; they're just actions. Just things that occur and are constantly occurring.

So, where does that leave things we do as humans? Who's to say what is right or wrong?

If Mr A say's murder is right and Mr B say's it's wrong - who has the correct view? If creation of life was an accident, then surely it doesn't matter.

A foul in boxing can only be a foul if we know the rules. If God didn't exist and we take away every 'religious' morals and replace them with a blank sheet for humans to fill in...would we write the same thing? If two people disagreed, who has the correct view?

Why would one person's view be more 'right' than the others?

Rambling a little, maybe, but just wanted to get it out there....

***ROLLDEEP*** · 10-12-2012, 02:51 PM

Ooops, just realised I used my bro's account....

***the ollie reed fan club*** · 10-12-2012, 06:30 PM

Spyder Wrote:
the ollie reed fan club Wrote:
Spyder Wrote:I have never understood why people use Darwinism as 'proof' that God does not exist. As if the creator of everything couldn't possibly create us to adapt...to persevere. How shortsighted would that creator have to be to not foresee future changes in its design? You'd have to assume that God is a bumbling idiot that could never predict (nor influence) future events to use that as a disqualifier.

I have to admit that I am challenged to fully understand Atheists. Their whole life revolves around the premise of finding a different explanation to the obvious. To challenge what others have realized...that life cannot exist by mere chance. It is impossible even by Darwin's own theory.

To that point, I ask this question. Explain reproduction.

A sperm fertilizes an egg, and the egg multiplies its cell. I think we can all agree to this. It is easily observable, and can be fully accepted as fact. Now how did this process begin? Darwin says that life evolves based off of outside stimuli. That cells learn what changes are needed to survive, and adapt to compensate. Once a sperm is shot, it is on a one way journey to fulfill its purpose. It encounters a few different hurdles in its path, but through its design it is able to accomplish this improbable task. It needs to be hardy enough to survive inside a foreign animal. It needs a method of propulsion to get from point A to point B. It needs to be able to recognize its destination once it gets there. It needs to know what genetic material is needed to complete the process. And it needs to chemically alter the egg to prevent anymore sperm from entering. Here's the kicker...it needs to know all of this stuff before it even starts its journey.

Explain to me how a sperm knew what changes needed to be made to its internal makeup to impregnate an egg. And how did it know to stop making changes when it found one that worked?
See you see to be heading into the 'Intelligent Design' field, which comes back to my point previously.

As we become more scientifically advanced so Deism changes to accommodate the findings of the day. And yes there are parts of evolution that Darwin and science can still not explain, I believe the iris caused him all sorts of problems.

And this is where some Deists have conveniently popped up with their 'Intelligent Design' model.

Spyder let me flip the question around on you if I may. Just because there are parts of our evolution that science cannot cuurently explain does this automatically mean that there must be a God?

If that is the case I'd the burden of specific proof is all ahead of you. Darwinist's have a lot less to explain than Deists do.
Your questions are created for arguments sake rather than the search for validity. That is the difference, and the reason that they are fundamentally flawed. This is true for politics as well. Rather than accepting what is easily explained, you pose questions with no other answers...ones that take HUGE liberties and associates them with the truth.

The fact remains, that scientific theories are just that...theories. They might be dressed up pretty with fancy words, and consist of million dollar research projects...all paid for by the taxpayer I might add...but they are based on a hypothesis that in itself is biased, and supported by carefully selected findings that "prove" their validity. It is no different than any other self-fulfilling prophecy.

What you should be doing is asking yourself...what is the truth? Well that my friend can be found rather easily by using Occam's razor...among competing hypotheses, the one which makes the fewest assumptions should be selected. This is both scientifically valid, and in line with everything that makes the world go 'round.

So, do me a favor, rather than diverting my question to help save your argument...take a moment to truly think about it, and tell me how reproduction works without a creator.

Hahahahahahahahahahaha lol

Every point you raise here could be turned back non itself. As Lloyd points out why did religion just suddenly appear only a few hundred years ago?

Don't you think it funny that in the modern age of cell phones and video no modern miracles appear? Spyder stay on point and give me some FACTS.

The burden of proof is all on you and you can't give me anything other than "tell me how reproduction works without a creator."

***Spyder*** · 10-12-2012, 07:28 PM

the ollie reed fan club Wrote:
Spyder Wrote:
the ollie reed fan club Wrote:
Spyder Wrote:I have never understood why people use Darwinism as 'proof' that God does not exist. As if the creator of everything couldn't possibly create us to adapt...to persevere. How shortsighted would that creator have to be to not foresee future changes in its design? You'd have to assume that God is a bumbling idiot that could never predict (nor influence) future events to use that as a disqualifier.

I have to admit that I am challenged to fully understand Atheists. Their whole life revolves around the premise of finding a different explanation to the obvious. To challenge what others have realized...that life cannot exist by mere chance. It is impossible even by Darwin's own theory.

To that point, I ask this question. Explain reproduction.

A sperm fertilizes an egg, and the egg multiplies its cell. I think we can all agree to this. It is easily observable, and can be fully accepted as fact. Now how did this process begin? Darwin says that life evolves based off of outside stimuli. That cells learn what changes are needed to survive, and adapt to compensate. Once a sperm is shot, it is on a one way journey to fulfill its purpose. It encounters a few different hurdles in its path, but through its design it is able to accomplish this improbable task. It needs to be hardy enough to survive inside a foreign animal. It needs a method of propulsion to get from point A to point B. It needs to be able to recognize its destination once it gets there. It needs to know what genetic material is needed to complete the process. And it needs to chemically alter the egg to prevent anymore sperm from entering. Here's the kicker...it needs to know all of this stuff before it even starts its journey.

Explain to me how a sperm knew what changes needed to be made to its internal makeup to impregnate an egg. And how did it know to stop making changes when it found one that worked?
See you see to be heading into the 'Intelligent Design' field, which comes back to my point previously.

As we become more scientifically advanced so Deism changes to accommodate the findings of the day. And yes there are parts of evolution that Darwin and science can still not explain, I believe the iris caused him all sorts of problems.

And this is where some Deists have conveniently popped up with their 'Intelligent Design' model.

Spyder let me flip the question around on you if I may. Just because there are parts of our evolution that science cannot cuurently explain does this automatically mean that there must be a God?

If that is the case I'd the burden of specific proof is all ahead of you. Darwinist's have a lot less to explain than Deists do.
Your questions are created for arguments sake rather than the search for validity. That is the difference, and the reason that they are fundamentally flawed. This is true for politics as well. Rather than accepting what is easily explained, you pose questions with no other answers...ones that take HUGE liberties and associates them with the truth.

The fact remains, that scientific theories are just that...theories. They might be dressed up pretty with fancy words, and consist of million dollar research projects...all paid for by the taxpayer I might add...but they are based on a hypothesis that in itself is biased, and supported by carefully selected findings that "prove" their validity. It is no different than any other self-fulfilling prophecy.

What you should be doing is asking yourself...what is the truth? Well that my friend can be found rather easily by using Occam's razor...among competing hypotheses, the one which makes the fewest assumptions should be selected. This is both scientifically valid, and in line with everything that makes the world go 'round.

So, do me a favor, rather than diverting my question to help save your argument...take a moment to truly think about it, and tell me how reproduction works without a creator.
Hahahahahahahahahahaha Every point you raise here could be turned back non itself. As Lloyd points out why did religion just suddenly appear only a few hundred years ago?

Don't you think it funny that in the modern age of cell phones and video no modern miracles appear? Spyder stay on point and give me some FACTS.

The burden of proof is all on you and you can't give me anything other than "tell me how reproduction works without a creator."

You must've missed my reply to lloyd, so I'll quote it for you...

Quote:Your timeline is off. Judaism is about 3000 years old, and Christianity began in the mid-1st century. These are not new religions that just popped up in the last few hundred years.

I love having these types of discussions...most of the time with liberals...who view humans as being no greater than any other creature. Most of the time it comes up in food discussions. Food Inc in particular where the dude says that humans are the only species on the planet that drinks the milk of another species. As if that makes it wrong...lol...well, my quick rebuttal is always..."and humans are the only species to put a man on the moon, and cure diseases, and build skyscrapers, etc..."

We are different, we are special, and we do have a purpose.

But regardless of that...it's ok for you to just say that you don't know, and that you don't have an answer.

***Warlord*** · 10-12-2012, 11:47 PM

One of the biggest issues people seem to have concerning God is the notion that "I can't see him, where is he, he isn't there, etc..."

I always laugh when I hear shit like that, as if humans could even possibly begin to fathom or comprehend a being so far beyond them.

Imagine your superiority over the ant. You tower over him, watching him, observing him. Even with your boot hovering above him, he still can't conceive of you. He has absolutely zero awareness of what is going on. And he certainly has no idea regarding the world he lives on. He does not understand the scientific laws that rule his world, or the universe beyond.

That is a common theme for all the species on our planet. In fact, we are also confined within our own limited levels of comprehension. But the fact that the ant cannot see or conceive of us, is not evidence enough to disprove our existence.

One of my favorite stories is a novella called Flatland, written by Edwin A. Abbott. It deals mainly with physics, math, and dimensions. But there is also a profound philosophy underlining it all. I'll summarize the story, but I highly recommend you check it out.

"I call our world Flatland, not because we call it so, but to make its nature clearer to you?"

Basically it's a story of a shape (let's call him a square) living on a flat plane of existence. Imagine a game board. On this flat board there exist many different shapes such as circles, squares, triangles, etc... But of course they are all flat, so none of them can conceive of shapes. To them, everything looks like a line. All they see are straight lines.

But one day, the author of the story (a citizen of Flatland) is taken out of flatland and sent to Line-land. In line land, every living being is a straight line. In Line-land their vision is only limited to seeing forward and backward.

Our author meets one of these lines, who ignorantly calls himself Monarch, for he believes himself a king. Monarch is completely unaware that there are other lines (other creatures) in his world, because he can neither turn left nor right to view them.

When our author attempts to tell Monarch that there are other lines in his land, the Monarch refuses to believe it, because he cannot see them. Finally our author gives up trying to teach the Monarch what lies beyond.

Finally, our author discovers he is being led to these worlds by a 3-dimensional being from a place called Space-land. The stranger from Space-land attempts to explain to the author where he comes from. He attempts to explain his world (a world of 3 dimensions.)

But of course, our author can't comprehend 3 dimensions. So the stranger takes him to Space-land.

And the author nearly goes mad, his brain failing to comprehend all that it has suddenly been exposed to. "Either this is madness or it is Hell." he says.

"It is neither," replied the voice of the Stranger. "It is Knowledge; it is Three Dimensions: open your eye once again and try to look steadily."

"I looked, and, behold, a new world!" said the author, for he finally understood that there was more in existence than he had ever dreamed of before.

And so the Stranger, now called Teacher, began to show our Flatland author all the shapes and sizes that had previously been unknown to him.

Eventually our author returns to Flatland. He decides to pass his knowledge on to his countrymen. But they do not listen, nor can they be convinced.

They do not believe, because they cannot see.

The leaders of Flatland have our author imprisoned for his heresy, where he remains to this day.

"You see," said his teacher, "how little your words have done. Nothing that you or I can do can rescue them from their self-satisfaction."

I don't know if this will have any effect on any of you who choose not to believe in the existence of that which you cannot properly comprehend, but I hope you will at least consider the implications of Mr. Abbot's story.

"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
-William Shakespeare

***BGv4.0*** · 10-13-2012, 12:13 AM

I love Flatland....so much mind blowing in what..like 90 pages? lol

***lloyd mayflower*** · 10-14-2012, 03:04 AM

Warlord Wrote:One of the biggest issues people seem to have concerning God is the notion that "I can't see him, where is he, he isn't there, etc..."

I always laugh when I hear shit like that, as if humans could even possibly begin to fathom or comprehend a being so far beyond them.

Imagine your superiority over the ant. You tower over him, watching him, observing him. Even with your boot hovering above him, he still can't conceive of you. He has absolutely zero awareness of what is going on. And he certainly has no idea regarding the world he lives on. He does not understand the scientific laws that rule his world, or the universe beyond.

That is a common theme for all the species on our planet. In fact, we are also confined within our own limited levels of comprehension. But the fact that the ant cannot see or conceive of us, is not evidence enough to disprove our existence.

One of my favorite stories is a novella called Flatland, written by Edwin A. Abbott. It deals mainly with physics, math, and dimensions. But there is also a profound philosophy underlining it all. I'll summarize the story, but I highly recommend you check it out.

"I call our world Flatland, not because we call it so, but to make its nature clearer to you?"

Basically it's a story of a shape (let's call him a square) living on a flat plane of existence. Imagine a game board. On this flat board there exist many different shapes such as circles, squares, triangles, etc... But of course they are all flat, so none of them can conceive of shapes. To them, everything looks like a line. All they see are straight lines.

But one day, the author of the story (a citizen of Flatland) is taken out of flatland and sent to Line-land. In line land, every living being is a straight line. In Line-land their vision is only limited to seeing forward and backward.

Our author meets one of these lines, who ignorantly calls himself Monarch, for he believes himself a king. Monarch is completely unaware that there are other lines (other creatures) in his world, because he can neither turn left nor right to view them.

When our author attempts to tell Monarch that there are other lines in his land, the Monarch refuses to believe it, because he cannot see them. Finally our author gives up trying to teach the Monarch what lies beyond.

Finally, our author discovers he is being led to these worlds by a 3-dimensional being from a place called Space-land. The stranger from Space-land attempts to explain to the author where he comes from. He attempts to explain his world (a world of 3 dimensions.)

But of course, our author can't comprehend 3 dimensions. So the stranger takes him to Space-land.

And the author nearly goes mad, his brain failing to comprehend all that it has suddenly been exposed to. "Either this is madness or it is Hell." he says.

"It is neither," replied the voice of the Stranger. "It is Knowledge; it is Three Dimensions: open your eye once again and try to look steadily."

"I looked, and, behold, a new world!" said the author, for he finally understood that there was more in existence than he had ever dreamed of before.

And so the Stranger, now called Teacher, began to show our Flatland author all the shapes and sizes that had previously been unknown to him.

Eventually our author returns to Flatland. He decides to pass his knowledge on to his countrymen. But they do not listen, nor can they be convinced.

They do not believe, because they cannot see.

The leaders of Flatland have our author imprisoned for his heresy, where he remains to this day.

"You see," said his teacher, "how little your words have done. Nothing that you or I can do can rescue them from their self-satisfaction."

I don't know if this will have any effect on any of you who choose not to believe in the existence of that which you cannot properly comprehend, but I hope you will at least consider the implications of Mr. Abbot's story.

"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
-William Shakespeare

I like that. Like i said already, i dont believe even the best physicist can truly comprehend space and time. And i believe in another plane of existence. However, for me none of this makes any of the religions more credible. Spirituality would seem to be ingrained in the human psyche. I reckon even someone who had never came in contact with religion would at least consider the possibility of something more than we know, but religion, well thats just outright human manufactured story telling for me.

***blackbelt2003*** · 10-15-2012, 02:12 PM

Of course religious doctrine is an outdated view on things. That does not make the subject matter untrue.

Take a science journal from 500 years ago. Hell, take a science journal from FIFTY years ago, and most stuff in it would be laughingly inaccurate. Does that means science is bullshit?

Because that's what we basically do with religion. We take a 2,000 year old book describing man's relationship and understanding of God, and attempt to scrutinise it with 21st century understanding. Of COURSE it doesn't add up. Our relationship and understanding of God has changed so much in that time.

But does it mean everything in the Bible is wrong? Of course not. Even some Old Testament stuff that we would say is wacky could have truth in it...it was just a 2000 year old viewpoint.

For instance, what would the naysayers say about the whole 10 plagues and parting of the Red Sea? Bollocks?

Black

***the ollie reed fan club*** · 10-15-2012, 05:57 PM

blackbelt2003 Wrote:Take a science journal from 500 years ago. Hell, take a science journal from FIFTY years ago, and most stuff in it would be laughingly inaccurate. Does that means science is bullshit?

Well see that's where you and I differ. I am prepared to say science as it currently stands may be bullshit. It may turn out that Darwin's theories are duds right up with the flat earth society.

As Lloyd has mentioned previously the actual origins of our planet and galaxy may be so complex they are beyond our current conception. I'm prepared to cede there. Deists are not.

What I will say though is that at least Agnostics or even Atheist Agnostics have a working theory to put in the table. It may be far from perfect and it may have some holes in it but at least it's something.

So far in this thread Deists have given me nothing beyond "there must be something that created us" and that's it!! No evidence, nothing, just stuff we can't explain, ergo as we can't explain it it must come from a 'creator.'

As evidence is clearly not required to make your case, in fact it is a case predicated on the 'inexpiable' you will surely concede that for the sake of argument our creator could potentially be a giant rabbit one thousand feet high, that speaks in a Bugs Bunny type voice and lives in a galaxy far far away.

Of course that is in the face of it preposterous, but so far the Deists among you have given me nothing to disprove this notion.

***the ollie reed fan club*** · 10-15-2012, 05:59 PM

lloyd mayflower Wrote:I like that. Like i said already, i dont believe even the best physicist can truly comprehend space and time. And i believe in another plane of existence. However, for me none of this makes any of the religions more credible. Spirituality would seem to be ingrained in the human psyche. I reckon even someone who had never came in contact with religion would at least consider the possibility of something more than we know, but religion, well thats just outright human manufactured story telling for me.

Agreed. Looking at religion doctrine, regardless of faith or denomination, it bears all the hallmarks of storytelling. Storytelling by men lol

However for the sake of the argument I will concede it is possible to have 'faith' without believing in 'religion' I think they can be two separate things.