U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
 
 
Old 12-29-2011, 06:14 PM
 
3,478 posts, read 1,247,304 times
Reputation: 2851
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanspeur View Post
Ah, the beauty of make believe...The definition of day ( the time it takes the earth to make a single rotation) or year ( the time it takes the earth to make a single orbit around the sun) can be conveniently ignored and each can be anything you want it to be...
It also ignores the fact that the day was widely known and accepted in Biblical times to be pretty much the same as it is today. What it is is a cop out, a sad excuse for lazy thinking.
Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-30-2011, 10:43 AM
 
Location: Somewhere out there
9,621 posts, read 6,714,514 times
Reputation: 3625
Talking Oh! Ask Me! Ask Me! I have THE ANSWER! (I just now thought of it!)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fillmont View Post
....when people try to pass of one way of thinking as something it's not, that's when the fighting gloves come on (young earth creationism or intelligent design as bona-fide science, for instance). That would be harmful.

We're all just a little bit nutbag.
I AM NOT!! I'm NOT, I'm NOT, I'm NOT, I'm NOT, I'm NOT, I'm NOT, I'm NOT, I'm NOT.........

Quote:
Originally Posted by orogenicman View Post
It also ignores the fact that the day was widely known and accepted in Biblical times to be pretty much the same as it is today. What it is is a cop out, a sad excuse for lazy thinking.
Yes, this certainly has the right odor of being a later-day add-on hypothesis, which sadly lacks any of the basic parameters of being even vaguely probable, consistent, viable, explanatory in terms of the real world, or spiritually credible.

However, it does garner special Gold Brownie points for sheer spur-of-the-moment imagination & creativity, for it's utter gall and pomp, it's reeking demonstration of our vast hominid arrogance, and it's special convenience in, again, tilting the suspension of disbelief.

Oh, and in confirming to many of us here that our basic Christian denialist poster here is SO scientifically untutored and "illiterate" that they probably actually believe their version of altered time horizons (and of ID as well..) is scientifically credible, and that our thinking is stultified and crusted over. After all, it's right there on the AiG website, FurGoshSakes! Undeniable!

I don't think Christians are usually lazy about being this creative, at least on their side of these so-called "debates". They're only über-hesitant to alter and update their particular knowledge. They only seem to take direction from the Mother Ship, as in: as always and totally relying on having others do their thinking and conclusions for them.

It's as if using one's God-given mind is a mortal sin!

Last edited by rifleman; 12-30-2011 at 10:53 AM..
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-30-2011, 11:12 AM
 
Location: Dallas, TX
1,490 posts, read 1,347,502 times
Reputation: 858
It's funny the difference between science and religion. In science, a theory has to predict something and then experiments bear those predictions out before it's given any credence. For instance, the Theory of General Relativity predicted the bending of light around the sun which was proven during an eclipse. Religion declares things to be absolutely true and when they're irrefutably disproven, either they're only meant figuratively, some ridiculous theory is provided to explain how it can be true (which of course has no evidence), or the scientists are conspiring against religion. Is it any wonder why I put my trust in science?
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-31-2011, 12:19 PM
 
Location: Somewhere out there
9,621 posts, read 6,714,514 times
Reputation: 3625
Default V. well said!

Special Reps to Kenshi; very succinctly and accurately stated.

Plus, never refutted as the predominant Christian debating tactic either.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-01-2012, 01:38 PM
 
Location: USA
1,127 posts, read 562,966 times
Reputation: 1259
Quote:
Originally Posted by jdaelectro View Post
What do you think the plausible method of space travel would be if we were to inhabit another planet? Faster than light is pointless. We need a faster method. Bending space (Warp) is so far off that it is only a dream.

We are a very young species in the galactic timeline. This is a "fact" taught by the old universe pushers. There should be many other mature beings roaming the cosmos. Yet they evade us.

If the universe is billions of years old and has many life sustaining planets then surely we would know by now.

The old populated universe is a paradox. This is explained by the Fermi Paradox.

Fermi paradox - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What are your thoughts?

How about this: the species that did evolve, are wise. And know not to mess with the planet's evolution and freak people out and turn their beliefs upside down, so they don't come for a visit

others did not evolve yet (like us) and can't travel either


As far as paradoxes, sometimes our thinking is kind of like "one dimensional" and therefore the idea looks like a paradox. But when we learn more information about the subject (add more dimensions to our thinking), it becomes a non-paradox idea...

My own example is this one: The Bible Trinity where Jesus the Son and God the Father and the Holy Spirit are one, and three, and the same, and not. Because Jesus talks to the Father (not to himself) and Jesus says that the Father is greater than him. It's not possible to see this explanation on a line (like people usually say: well, imagine that it's pizza, and there are three pieces of pizza or stuff like that) Imagining it like that is like spreading it on one line, in one dimensional thinking.

But if you learn that the universe is like a fractal in some way, a circle inside of a circle, you can picture Trinity much better. It's too hard to explain but I'll give it a shot anyways. It will sound like a bunch of non sense to those who have no belief in any of these things. But maybe someone who believes will read and see where I am going...

If you imagine that a smaller physical body produces a consciousness. Then imagine that a combination (a number of physical bodies) produces a bigger consciousness. Then a combination of these bigger consciousnesses produces an eve bigger consciousness....

So like a person consists of many physical living cells. All together they produce a consciousness. A human.

But if you take many humans and put them together, they will produce a consciousness over them all. Like a planet wide consciousness.

And if you take many planets like that and put them together, they would produce a consciousness over them all, like a galactic consciousness. And so on...

So if you picture that the Universe is a consciousness (which consists of everything in it), which means it has a physical body and a spiritual body (consciousness/spirit).
Like a human also, has a physical body (a collection of living cells) and a spiritual body (consciousness emergent from the living cells)


And then if you imagine that a Universe is alive and has a physical body of a sort (consisting of everything we know), the universe could be perceived as God.
The universe (since it's alive and has a physical body) also has an emerging consciousness/spirit from it. So that part could be perceived as the Spirit of God, or the Holy Spirit.
Also, the universe IS a collection of us. (but more than that). So the Universe experiences life through each one of us. So in that sense, each one of us is a part of God. Universe consists of us as its living cells. So we are a part of it as color red and blue and green are a part of the rainbow, but not a rainbow by themselves.

The universe could also control a character, not just experience life through it. So when it controls a character, it would be like playing an online game and choosing a character to play through. In that case, it's not just the character, it's YOU playing through the character. So the Universe chose to play the game (live on earth) through a character (human Jesus) by controlling Jesus' actions (Jesus did say: it's the Father speaking through me and doing through me) and at that time Jesus became a god (because a "god" was playing through that character) (although Jesus was always a part of god, just like every living cell (each person) is a part of God already, but in this case, Jesus was actually doing everything god wanted done)

So in this way, the Universe is God the Father (by its physical parts)
The Holy Spirit by its consciousness/spirit
And the God in human form by "playing the game through the character of Jesus"

Last edited by LoveWisdom; 01-01-2012 at 02:14 PM..
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-02-2012, 11:32 AM
 
Location: Somewhere out there
9,621 posts, read 6,714,514 times
Reputation: 3625
Now this is an interesting post, I'll happily give you that, DayLight. If I might, I'd like to make a few off-my-cuff responses. In the spirit of The New Year, I'll try my darndest to be non-sarcastic, but let me warn yah: if I offer a logical example and you come back with abject silliness, the gloves might come off!

Quote:
Originally Posted by DayLight1555 View Post
How about this: the species that did evolve, are wise. And know not to mess with the planet's evolution and freak people out and turn their beliefs upside down, so they (meaning alien visitors...) don't come for a visit

Others did not evolve yet (like us) and can't travel either.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rflmn
Note: Even the idea of flying off into the universe is an obvious and logical outgrowth of the dinosaurs.

"Huh??" you say? "What the Heck is that nutcake rifleman drumming up now?" you mutter...

Well see, if there never was a planet-wide extinction (proven, btw) and thus a layer of dead dinos and vegetation, then there also would not have been well-"fermented" hydrocarbons existing as combustible, fractionable oils (into fuels, lubes, etc.) that allowed the Wright Brothers to imagine and then create powered flight, and the tickling of our collective imaginations about flying.

Then we logically and curiously turned to more and more powerful piston engines, then air-burning jets, but eventually & necessarily rockets (which carry their own oxidants as the primary difference between them and atmospherically-restricted jets...). The rest is history. Other species might not even have birds to wonder at (birds also being remnant dinosaurs, btw...), nor the easily available and high energy fuels we've had access to! Ergo, no flight to inspire and wonder at. Also remember that other species may have an even more difficult problem in getting off their home planet. What if it's bigger that Earth and therefore has a higher gravitational pull? and as well, unless those danged competing aliens have come up with some other energy source necessary for really long space travel, you can't carry enough fuel to go very far at all!
As far as paradoxes, sometimes our thinking is kind of like "one dimensional" (You're not kidding! Esp. some posters here...) and therefore the idea looks like a paradox. But when we learn more information about the subject (add more dimensions to our thinking), it becomes a non-paradox idea...

My own example is this one:

(rflmn notes: and then you go on to provide a very vivid and creative visualization...) But... ahem.... I'm going to highlight in GREEN the ideas where you have made, I'll admit, some very interesting suggestions, but they are only cumulative guesses and hypotheses, don't you agree?

As in: Each later one requires that the earlier one be in place and factual. Else it's what they call a house of cards, right?


If you imagine that a smaller physical body produces a consciousness. Then imagine that a combination (a number of physical bodies) produces a bigger consciousness. Then a combination of these bigger consciousnesses produces an even bigger consciousness....

So like a person consists of many physical living cells. All together they produce a consciousness. A human.

But if you take many humans and put them together, they will produce a consciousness over them all. Like a planet wide consciousness.

And if you take many planets like that and put them together, they would produce a consciousness over them all, like a galactic consciousness. And so on...

So if you picture that the Universe is a consciousness (which consists of everything in it), which means it has a physical body and a spiritual body (consciousness/spirit).
Like a human also, has a physical body (a collection of living cells) and a spiritual body (consciousness emergent from the living cells)

And then if you imagine that a Universe is alive and has a physical body of a sort (consisting of everything we know), the universe could be perceived as God.

The universe (since it's alive and has a physical body) also has an emerging consciousness/spirit from it. So that part could be perceived as the Spirit of God, or the Holy Spirit.
Also, the universe IS a collection of us. (but more than that). So the Universe experiences life through each one of us. So in that sense, each one of us is a part of God. Universe consists of us as its living cells. So we are a part of it as color red and blue and green are a part of the rainbow, but not a rainbow by themselves.

(etc., etc...)

The universe could also control a character, not just experience life through it. So when it controls a character, it would be like playing an online game and choosing a character to play through.

So in this way, the Universe is God the Father (by its physical parts)
The Holy Spirit by its consciousness/spirit
And the God in human form by "playing the game through the character of Jesus"
Or not? If we assume that a smaller individual does NOT produce a conscious measurable and externalizible (reactive, interactive, effects-generating [outside of the body that is] spirit, then your accumulating spiritual entity sort of fades, right?

I mean, since we have no documented or reproducible physical evidence of even any of the claimed miraculous acts of that Middle-Eastern mono-theistic conflation-creation of prior multi-godz called God, what are we to conclude about His Universal ability to manage, interact or control the universe?

As well, even if this magnanimous concept were true, why then does "He", as a representation of our collective consciousness, get to be The Lord Almighty? Why don't we get, let's call it, a VOTE?

The reason for that pecking order would obviously be that the Church wants to be the titular administrative head, to also "take a little of the cream off the top.." as it were, and to do the disciplinary spanking (and... ahem.... in some recently uncovered cases, that's a little more than just a metaphor... ouch!) where it, not we, decide if a sin has occurred.

Well again, I do like your mind, DayLight, but again, the high level of imaginary & accumulatin' accomodation and exaggeration in order to get to your final suggested position, has a bit of an air of "Mission Accomplished!" about it, which I can't quite go with!

Especially when, if we Danged Satanic Scientists (Like Dawkins, Darwin, Hawking, Hitchens, and rifleman!....) do the same speculative thinking, but with a non-theistic prediction-driven perspective on the entire universe, where we simply speculate and hypothesize what we should or might see, but then we also go and objectively test for that possibility, and in a number of different ways and over literally decades, using ever-more powerful tools, it is sorta what we find! Huzzah! Go figure, huh?

Happy New Year's to you! And keep it up. Refreshingly interesting, versus the yowling and repetitively yammerous cries and denials an refusals to even consider alternative ideas, i.e.: the mindset of the less literate but rote-trained parrot fundies (IMHO...) that lurk about in here!

Last edited by rifleman; 01-02-2012 at 11:46 AM..
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-03-2012, 08:37 AM
 
Location: Venice Italy
729 posts, read 427,398 times
Reputation: 406
The way of perceiving the existence in the human being is too influenced by religion, after millennia of practice, the input is entered in the human DNA, and this prevents a different view of events,now l will try to give the right sense in this hypo-thesy The substance principle ( the raw materia ),is one, homogeneous, Divine , is the only ones root cause.
it's called the substance of the manifested universe and it is not an illusion it is a principle in the abstract space visible and invisible, without beginning or end.
the reality is all powerful and impersonal cos it includes everything and all things.
Its impersonality is the fundamental concept of the system it is latent in every atom in the uni-verse, it is the uni-verse itself.
The uni-verse is the periodical manifestation of this unknown Absolute Essence.
The universe, as it contains all in everything and everything is in it , all is temporary,consider the ephemeral life of a fly, and up to the sun, we are used to think that our dimension is the reality while in our belly exist a micro cosmo dimension of living bacteria, are they living the same human reality?
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-03-2012, 01:15 PM
 
3,003 posts, read 1,191,986 times
Reputation: 723
Why is everybody in such a tizzy about my explanations (yes I know, you think they're nuts)? My explanation (as a reminder so you don't have to dig back in the thread) is that the first 6 days of creation took million or billions of years, and then Shabbos hits on the 7th day, and time as we understand it kicks in.

In this explanation, I'm giving you the fact that the world is billions of years old. All I'm asking you to consider, is that as smart as you all think you are, that it's possible we don't understand exactly what a day was like for the first 6 days of the Earth's existence, and therefore we can now reconcile both the idea that the Earth is 5772 years old (as stated in the Torah) and billions of years old (as stated by the scientists). Both are correct. Why must the scientificly-driven folks poo poo the religious idea of the earth's age, when the religious are not doing the same back at you?
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-03-2012, 03:09 PM
 
Location: Somewhere out there
9,621 posts, read 6,714,514 times
Reputation: 3625
Quote:
Originally Posted by theflipflop View Post
Why is everybody in such a tizzy about my explanations (yes I know, you think they're nuts)? My explanation (as a reminder so you don't have to dig back in the thread) is that the first 6 days of creation took million or billions of years, and then Shabbos hits on the 7th day, and time as we understand it kicks in.

In this explanation, I'm giving you the fact that the world is billions of years old. All I'm asking you to consider, is that as smart as you all think you are, that it's possible we don't understand exactly what a day was like for the first 6 days of the Earth's existence, and therefore we can now reconcile both the idea that the Earth is 5772 years old (as stated in the Torah) and billions of years old (as stated by the scientists). Both are correct. Why must the scientificly-driven folks poo poo the religious idea of the earth's age, when the religious are not doing the same back at you?
Well uhhhmmmm... .erhhhhh it's because you've arrived at a conclusion that the earth is of two different ages, by a huge and significant margin. And even if we ignore the temporal discrepancy, there's still that little issue of there being no frikin way the earth can be a mere 5772 years old, even if we utilize some "alternate" sliding time scale and day length, since a coincidental all-hands-on-deck Genesis startup concept still places all of God's designed creatures in place at the precise same starting point. Which doesn't work, m'laddie!

The T-Rexs and all the other Gigantic tyrant dinosaurs...

A New Giant Tyrant, Zhuchengtyrannus | Dinosaur Tracking

(btw; HERE! This is an intriguing read, if you'd care to!: The Making of a Tyrant: New Research of T. rex Evolution | Dinosaur Tracking)

They alone would have "had" us, and most everything else, for lunch! But then, where's dinner, and a late-night snack?

Results: There'd be no nicey-nice Musk Oxen or moose or caribou or polar or grizzly bears up north (here we've found T-Rex bones, btw...), no elephants grazing on the African mesas, no giraffes or reptiles cuddling up in the sun alongside a massive predatory carnivorous eater.

And we'd also have to find all the hugely different species of man ((yes, I said species, by our definition, not the Christian denialist one..) which in fact we have never found all together, contemporaneously, when we look.

It's all too toooo impossibly improbable, as compared to our rather logical Evolutionary and geologically evolved Earth. Which is so well validated by a simple comparison of our "ancient earth & organism evolution" hypothesis coupled with the observable facts out in the field. QED!*
________________________________

QED: Q.E.D. is an initialism of the Latin phrase quod erat demonstrandum, which translates as "that which was to be proven has been shown.". The phrase is traditionally placed in its abbreviated form at the end of a mathematical proof or philosophical argument when what was specified in the enunciation — and in the setting-out — has been exactly shown to be the conclusion of the demonstration.[1] The abbreviation thus signals the completion of the proof."

Huzzah!
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-03-2012, 03:36 PM
 
9,279 posts, read 5,275,943 times
Reputation: 9261
Quote:
Originally Posted by theflipflop View Post
Why is everybody in such a tizzy about my explanations (yes I know, you think they're nuts)? My explanation (as a reminder so you don't have to dig back in the thread) is that the first 6 days of creation took million or billions of years, and then Shabbos hits on the 7th day, and time as we understand it kicks in.

In this explanation, I'm giving you the fact that the world is billions of years old. All I'm asking you to consider, is that as smart as you all think you are, that it's possible we don't understand exactly what a day was like for the first 6 days of the Earth's existence, and therefore we can now reconcile both the idea that the Earth is 5772 years old (as stated in the Torah) and billions of years old (as stated by the scientists). Both are correct. Why must the scientificly-driven folks poo poo the religious idea of the earth's age, when the religious are not doing the same back at you?
Go nuts.

Rationalize away facts all you need to, it doesn't bother me.

But for the record there are YECs on this forum who will "poo poo" anything older than 6k as the age of the universe.
Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


 
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:
Over $84,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2014, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 - Top