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 2 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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 02-17-2009, 01:47 AM
 
4,047 posts, read 4,385,695 times
Reputation: 1321

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
The ruse that there is a difference between what science studies and what God is . . . is troubling on many levels . . . but primarily because it is deceitful. The name change has nothing to do with science.
God means consciousness, purposeful, right? Most people think of an anthropomorphic god or some sort of entity, and some prefer a pantheist god. Some think of the many gods of other mythologies. But gods are generally conscious movers causing the things in nature (being itself or beyond itself) to happen on purpose (to whatever degree).

Nature does not specify either purpose or purposelessness. You are free to decide as you wish. It still means the same thing in everyone's mind, regardless of the unprovable reason behind it.

So which word is less confusing and fits nearly everyone's definition of the world around us?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-17-2009, 02:02 AM
 
37,649 posts, read 25,348,785 times
Reputation: 5865
Quote:
Originally Posted by LogicIsYourFriend View Post
Nature does not specify either purpose or purposelessness.
If that were true there would be no problem . . . but it isn't. Nature eschews purpose and embodies purposelessness . . . which is taking a side.
Quote:
You are free to decide as you wish. It still means the same thing in everyone's mind, regardless of the unprovable reason behind it.
As long as the terms nature and natural are used to deny the existence of God or God processes (which there is NO basis for scientifically or otherwise) . . . there is no freedom to decide. Nature is seen as scientific . . . God is seen as bunk . . . simply because the debatable and unprovable attributes vary so much (and are obnoxious to so many scientists).
Quote:
So which word is less confusing and fits nearly everyone's definition of the world around us?
God . . . the inscrutable and honest one that admits ignorance and allows for diverse opinions about the ignorance without arrogance or ridicule or rancor.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-17-2009, 02:30 AM
 
2,633 posts, read 4,457,244 times
Reputation: 586
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
The ruse that there is a difference between what science studies and what God is . . . is troubling on many levels . . . but primarily because it is deceitful.
There's no deceit on my side. You failed to mention that you attribute a consciousness to god so your past assertions are moot.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
You seem to know more about the presence of life and consciousness in the universe than I am aware of. With 95+% of the universe not amenable to our scientific measurements (non-baryonic) . . . it is presumptuous to make such blanket statements on the basis of what little we do know about the 4% or so. .Besides . . . consciousness is not measurable . . . so it actually is more likely on a purely probabilistic basis (95+%)
Sorry mystic but I won't make your assumptions. You've moved far out from what you originally claimed.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-17-2009, 06:29 AM
 
1,577 posts, read 3,273,771 times
Reputation: 530
Quote:
Originally Posted by jroyals View Post
he was created by man.
exactly!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-17-2009, 06:36 AM
 
1,577 posts, read 3,273,771 times
Reputation: 530
Quote:
Originally Posted by kdbrich View Post
Never....EVER been observed, by the way.
So you're substituting an omnipotent God with omnipotent chance...or omnipotent chemistry.

LOL...ok.

Really...the words of Solomon a few thousands years still ring true. There is nothing new under the sun. You guys can't come up with anything new...only the delivery of it.
The creation of a miniscule planet by some cosmic alien was never observed either.

Your arguing based on the same amount of supposition that the rest of us are. All that matters is the here and now, not the what could have been.

And in the here and now, its far easier to explain things than it was back then. If someone were to create a Bible today and recreate those same events in the 21st century, they be seen as crackpots and taken away, not seen as saviors and prophets.

However if someone tells and explains why the sun is a mixture of gases and gravity, its very easy for people to understand and believe it, especially since you can see and feel the evidence (example).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-17-2009, 09:26 AM
 
Location: Somewhere out there
9,616 posts, read 11,091,955 times
Reputation: 3718
Talking The Totality of Ignorance "Boggles"!

Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
Nature is seen as scientific . . . God is seen as bunk . . . simply because the debatable and unprovable attributes vary so much (and are obnoxious to so many scientists).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jackyfrost01 View Post
The creation of a miniscule planet by some cosmic alien was never observed either.

Your arguing based on the same amount of supposition that the rest of us are. All that matters is the here and now, not the what could have been.

And in the here and now, its far easier to explain things than it was back then. If someone were to create a Bible today and recreate those same events in the 21st century, they be seen as crackpots and taken away, not seen as saviors and prophets.

However if someone tells and explains why the sun is a mixture of gases and gravity, its very easy for people to understand and believe it, especially since you can see and feel the evidence (example).
Well put, JF. Mystic, you enjoy telling people how wrong their assumptions and yet yours are equally illogical. Your own personal convictions have driven some of the more ludicrous statements I've read in many a month.

You claim that because we experience our own consciousness, and that things around us just "are", well then, ergo, silly atheists, there must be a God.

Nope. No logical sale here. You can insult mine and others' logic powers as having formed so far below yours; you can obfuscate with big words like "obfuscate", or decrie the "rubrics" we use. And on and on. But in the end you're hopelessly stuck in your own circular arguments and altogether too dismissive of any other clean, new approach.

The universe around us surely "is". How and why it began or now "is" we'll probably never know. To assume the philosophically smallest, least likely and most mystic mode of origin purely because of "awe" is sad. While the simple, progressive and logical tools of questioning have produced some interesting facts, interactions and truths that lead inevitably towards a single unifying theory or law of all existance, the evidence for your singular god remains stuck in time. Nothing new arises, nothing new illustrates, nothing new astounds, illuminates, validates from that blindered narrow faith-based set of beliefs. Just as Cannibalism's ideology produces nothing new or useful (well, other than a potentially useful form of global protein supply...).

And to boot, the new science has effectively killed many Christian icons. You claim atheists are afraid of religion; I suggest the obvious alternate. Evidence of that surrounds us daily, and the influence of Christianity with it's many flaws declines by the hour. As it should; we've moved out of the cave many millenia past.

To quote your earler intellectual dismissal, "it boggles".

You also seem to accept science, which is smart because to deny such a simplistic tool's utility would truly position your argument in a dark place. But somehow you then disallow the consequences and hie to that cold dark line of reasoning that says: What science discovers God most surely designed and created.

There's simply no rationale for that one, nor is there any logic to the idea that "because we observe something complex or conscious, it must therefore have been the Druids". No sale, Mystic. Unrelated.

First there was the world, the universe, our blinking awakening as an organism capable of cognition, and then finally the totality of our existance. Then, gazing intently into our newly discovered navels, we became frightened, and we decided we needed rationality and simple peasant-level explanations. And thus, the real "Poof"! God and the world's vast multitude of conflicting and warlike religions suddenly arose.

And the in-fighting and denials and insults continue to this day.

The vast philosophical freedom that I and others (and soon my son, BTW) enjoy from this blatant attempt to maintain a stranglehold on people's minds is quite refreshing. Arguing it with fundamentalists is quite entertaining. Even with those who obfuscate and employ what they think are clever put-downs cloaked in some sort of kindly patronizing smirkage.

Last edited by rifleman; 02-17-2009 at 09:29 AM.. Reason: typos
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-17-2009, 10:41 AM
 
11 posts, read 11,723 times
Reputation: 11
google Abiogenesis
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-17-2009, 11:05 AM
 
4,669 posts, read 3,917,786 times
Reputation: 409
Quote:
Originally Posted by marchello12 View Post
google Abiogenesis

It's never been observed. It's a myth.

Aristotle believed that aphids appeared via abiogenesis from the morning dew.

Redi proved that maggots did not naturally occur on meat left out where flies could not get to it to lay eggs.

Life does not come from non-life. It's that simple.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-17-2009, 11:23 AM
 
Location: Montrose, CA
3,031 posts, read 7,884,498 times
Reputation: 1925
Quote:
Originally Posted by kdbrich View Post
It has huuuuuuuuuuuuuuuge gaping holes in the theory. Where did it start?

What about the huge lack of fossil evidence?

There just isn't any proof for it. To anyone that claims that there is.....show us! Please....give us proof!
There is solid fossil evidence of radiolarians "caught" directly and indubitably in the very act of speciating. Not only that, but intermediates are plentiful, not only in this example of protozoa but in whales, birds, fish, et cetera.

You simply choose to cover your eyes and ears, stomp your feet, and refuse to acknowledge it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-17-2009, 11:29 AM
 
4,669 posts, read 3,917,786 times
Reputation: 409
"solid"? lol...ok.

examples, please.
Reply With Quote 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.


Reply
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 $104,000 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
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, 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, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top