The universe didn't come out of nothing. (contradiction, organization, body)

[MysticPhD]

Originally Posted by Konraden

They're both subjectively determined purposes--one just claims higher authority.

No . . . one is logically possible the other is illogical. One proceeds from the premise: There is no purpose . . . the other proceeds from the premise : There is a purpose.

And we need an objective definition of purpose why? We need purpose in the first place because of which reason?

To evaluate any acts and actions against as "constructive to the purpose"(Good/ Moral) or "destructive to the purpose"(Bad/Immoral)

Without intelligence and purpose, the creating entity is not God. We have a word and concept for that: nature, natural. If you arbitrarily define God simply as creating force--certainly God exists--but God is always defined by more than just "creating force."

This is the arrogance . . . usurping the default position as Not God (some other name) for the "Creator of all that exists" (pretty damn Godly . . don't you think?) You keep wanting to define and debate the "attributes" of this God . . . NOT His EXISTENCE . . . which immediately places you into one RELIGION or another.

We don't know.

That is the reason it is arrogant to usurp the default.

I do know the concepts provided by both the major religions do not exist. The one you present does not hold sufficient reason or evidence to convince me.

That makes your preference one of the minor ones. Yours does not hold sufficient reason or evidence to convince me either (since we both claim the same evidence)

More importantly, you're play at word games prevents you from establishing a clear and coherent definition of your God. Can't accept something that is incoherent.

Mine is as clear and coherent as yours. Why would I presume to add attributes that I do not have any reason (objective or subjective proof) to believe exist?

[blastodermo]

The universe didn't come out of nothing.


I agree, I think the Universe did not come from nothing, honestly I think nothing is impossible to explain the beginning of the Universe. I think it could be one of these two reasons:
First: God does exist.
Second: There is no a beginning (Universe has been staying forever).

But, really both answers are the same because we think God has been staying forever as well.

Finally, I want to say that something or everything from nothing is impossible to understnad by myself.

[dobeable]

Originally Posted by blastodermo

The universe didn't come out of nothing.


I agree, I think the Universe did not come from nothing, honestly I think nothing is impossible to explain the beginning of the Universe. I think it could be one of these two reasons:
First: God does exist.
Second: There is no a beginning (Universe has been staying forever).

But, really both answers are the same because we think God has been staying forever as well.

Finally, I want to say that something or everything from nothing is impossible to understnad by myself.

yeah agree-life comes from life

but i think what the atheist's argumet is- is that their was an energy before the universe and that might have created i-but then what created that-

too much physical order in the universe for their to be no intellegence behind it-IMHO

[GldnRule]

[quote=rifleman;13768290]As regards highway construction or national defense, OK. But as regards personal spirituality, not so much. BTW, under the usual terms of a democratic vote, a mere 50.01% get's your pet project started, but that in no way is a "landslide" victory. That leaves 49.09% really unhappy and fit to start an uprising. Better that we don't apply such simplistic rules to belief systems & personal spirituality, huh?

As in: The First Amendment to the lovely US Constitution. It's directive: Leave religion out of politics. No democratic majority vote to mandate prayer, for instance! To each his or her own. By law! Your votes do not get to determine what I believe, else you're a fascist dictator. You a fascist, GldnRl?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cut it out with the fascist stuff, man...being of 100% Italian descent I take extra exception.

I never said we should legislate religious doctrine. I said, when people vote, they vote both their truths and beliefs. Their beliefs will influence their vote, period. That's reality.

Religious issues don't even belong in government...that is in no way their job, or their authority...so there should be no vote on issues relative to religion to begin with. Votes about issues like cap punishment, abortion, entitlements, etc will be influenced by the beliefs of the voter...but only in that way should personal beliefs be a factor. But you still need a decision on stuff like that...thus, the necessity of a vote to be fair.

Majority rules is how the game works...and I got news for you...the "majority" may not be 50.01%...what if there are many choices of action or candidates?...a much lesser percentage may carry the day...effectively leaving the majority in dissent. BUT...it's still the only fair way to do it!!!

You got a better (more fair and equitable overall) way? I'd like to hear it.

I know...Make ME "World King"...I'll have it all squared away in no time.

World Law #1. No tax money shall be spent on any military effort, force, or equipment what-so-ever. No military, only law enforcement (police) at the minimum required to "keep the peace". How's THAT from a vet?...But the truth is, war has been the worst curse of mankind out of everything. What a wasteful, horrible endeavor.

[Konraden]

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

No . . . one is logically possible the other is illogical. One proceeds from the premise: There is no purpose . . . the other proceeds from the premise : There is a purpose.

What? No. To the humans that are involved in determining that purpose, it is entirely subjective. One group claims that purpose transcends human definition (I.E. God gave us purpose). The other camp is saying that purpose does not transcend human definition. One is not simply better because they externalize the means for it.

To evaluate any acts and actions against as "constructive to the purpose"(Good/ Moral) or "destructive to the purpose"(Bad/Immoral)

Keep going. And we need to know what is good and bad for the purpose because why?

This is the arrogance . . . usurping the default position as Not God (some other name) for the "Creator of all that exists" (pretty damn Godly . . don't you think?)

You're assuming "all that exists" was created.

You keep wanting to define and debate the "attributes" of this God . . . which immediately places you into one RELIGION or another . . NOT His EXISTENCE.

You've already aligned yourself by claiming God is a he.

But the attributes we assign to this godly figure is what defines it as God. Claiming a "life creating force without intelligence or purpose is God" is just ad hoc semantics in order to fulfill your theistic view that God exists. It tramples an established definition and concept in order to assert your theistic belief. If the "creating force" is not intelligent and without purpose--we have nature.

That is the reason it is arrogant to usurp the default. That makes your preference one of the minor ones. Yours does not hold sufficient reason or evidence to convince me either (since we both claim the same evidence)Mine is as clear and coherent as yours. Why would I presume to add attributes that I do not have any reason (objective or subjective proof) to believe exist?

You believe this creating force to be a he--that's an attribute. You believe this creating force to be intelligent--that's an attribute. You believe this creating force has designed a purpose to human life--that's an attribute.

Would you like to get into how much of this you are required to attribute to your definition of your creating force in order to make it cohesive with your religious belief?

[MysticPhD]

Originally Posted by Konraden

What? No. To the humans that are involved in determining that purpose, it is entirely subjective. One group claims that purpose transcends human definition (I.E. God gave us purpose). The other camp is saying that purpose does not transcend human definition. One is not simply better because they externalize the means for it.

You are not even trying to think this through. EITHER there actually is a purpose for human existence OR there is NOT. It has nothing to do with the subjective beliefs of anyone. Proceeding from those two REALITIES . . . the logic is clear. ONLY if there is an ACTUAL purpose as the premise does concern over ANY purpose make logical sense. Don't be obtuse. Your premise about REALITY determines the logical outcome.

Keep going. And we need to know what is good and bad for the purpose because why?

Didn't you read my post ? I explained the reason . . . remember the "constructive/destructive" part? If we have a purpose our lives should be measured against our progress in achieving it or hindering it . . . that produces morality.

You're assuming "all that exists" was created.

NO . . . you would be assuming . . . I know.

You've already aligned yourself by claiming God is a he.

Irrelevant. That part is MY version based on my information set. Your version is based on your information set. The subjectivity of myriad VERSIONS in no way negates the objectivity of the EXISTENCE.

But the attributes we assign to this godly figure is what defines it as God. Claiming a "life creating force without intelligence or purpose is God" is just ad hoc semantics in order to fulfill your theistic view that God exists. It tramples an established definition and concept in order to assert your theistic belief. If the "creating force" is not intelligent and without purpose--we have nature.

The only attributes that MUST be assigned are the irrefutable ones that the very existence and effectiveness of science requires and that science has discovered, PERIOD. ALL the other subjective attributes (including your purposeless indifference, or whatever) are irrelevant and disputable. We are only required to account for what we KNOW exists . . . and what we know exists is pretty damn Godly! Claiming we are too ignorant to account for it will NOT cut it. Existing definitions, beliefs, . . whatever has your mind so incapable of engaging REALITY unencumbered . . . have NOTHING to do with what ACTUALLY EXISTS. You can NOT establish that it has the attributes your prefer . . . so you don't get to ASSUME it as the default because of that ignorance.

You believe this creating force to be a he--that's an attribute. You believe this creating force to be intelligent--that's an attribute. You believe this creating force has designed a purpose to human life--that's an attribute.

The key word is BELIEVE. You BELIEVE a lot of sh*t too. That has NOTHING to do with what actually IS . . . and that is pretty damn Godly.

Would you like to get into how much of this you are required to attribute to your definition of your creating force in order to make it cohesive with your religious belief?

The irrefutable EXISTENCE is enough trouble for the day. My personal information and synthesis is sufficient FOR ME to accept the additional attributes I assign. Yours clearly is sufficient for you. You just don't get to call it NOT God and pretend that is the SCIENTIFICALLY established default position. It is NOT.

[Konraden]

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

You are not even trying to think this through. EITHER there actually is a purpose for human existence OR there is NOT. It has nothing to do with the subjective beliefs of anyone. Proceeding from those two REALITIES . . . the logic is clear. ONLY if there is an ACTUAL purpose as the premise does concern over ANY purpose make logical sense. Don't be obtuse. Your premise about REALITY determines the logical outcome.

And you're assuming we have purpose based on what evidence or reason?

Didn't you read my post ? I explained the reason . . . remember the "constructive/destructive" part? If we have a purpose our lives should be measured against our progress in achieving it or hindering it . . . that produces morality.

And If the purpose is not to objectively measure ourselves?

NO . . . you would be assuming . . . I know.

*laughing hysterically*

Okay. I'm not even going to bother asking you how you know.

Irrelevant. That part is MY version based on my information set. Your version is based on your information set. The subjectivity of myriad VERSIONS in no way negates the objectivity of the EXISTENCE.

Existence is evidence of--existence. How does that imply a creator by any means?

The only attributes that MUST be assigned are the irrefutable ones that the very existence and effectiveness of science requires and that science has discovered, PERIOD. ALL the other subjective attributes (including your purposeless indifference, or whatever) are irrelevant and disputable. We are only required to account for what we KNOW exists . . .

We know that matter and energy exist. That would be excellent evidence of existence--and not much else.

and what we know exists is pretty damn Godly!

I don't see how you connect existence with intelligent purposeful design with the observations we've made of our universe.

Claiming we are too ignorant to account for it will NOT cut it.

And claiming "God did it" more so.

Existing definitions, beliefs, . . whatever has your mind so incapable of engaging REALITY unencumbered . . . have NOTHING to do with what ACTUALLY EXISTS.

If we can not effectively define something it cannot be communicated in a meaningful manner. If you can't communicate in a meaningful manner, the idea or concept is meaningless.

If you want to play the word games with God and Nature, by all means do so--don't expect anyone here to play along just to fulfill your theistic view though.

You can NOT establish that it has the attributes your prefer . . . so you don't get to ASSUME it as the default because of that ignorance. The key word is BELIEVE. You BELIEVE a lot of sh*t too. That has NOTHING to do with what actually IS . . . and that is pretty damn Godly.

Would you like to talk about what is?

Life evolved from simple to complex through a process that functions without any outside intelligent guidance. The process itself does not follow any single path--instead random chance plays part into natural selection. An asteroid can kill off almost every large organism on Earth--opening doors to new and strange species.

Studies into evolution have shown bacteria that have developed resistance to some chemicals, but when the processes was "restarted" (freezing a culture every 10,000 generations allows for "rewinding" to a period in time) before the resistance mutation took place, the bacteria didn't develop that again--a process that doesn't guide in any way other than "survive."

We have processes in which planets, stars, systems, clusters, and galaxies form--all without any intelligent order.

There exist in space in distant galaxies, bursts of radiation that could kill us without ever knowing about it, should one happen in our area--I'd say that is very much not purposed towards life.

You have entire speculation about what you think might be purpose, or design, or intelligent workings--but our actual observations show life and humans to be very much not designed, not special, not purposed.

You believe otherwise.

The irrefutable EXISTENCE is enough trouble for the day.

Existence is evidence of existence--not intelligence. Dog's aren't wondering about what their God is going to do them if they **** on the carpet--human's have fooled themselves into thinking such.

My personal information and synthesis is sufficient FOR ME to accept the additional attributes I assign.

Excellent--you have a personal belief which is entirely based on subjective experiences. Existence is not evidence of God--especially one that you believe to be giving life purpose when none clearly exists.

Yours clearly is sufficient for you. You just don't get to call it NOT God and pretend that is the SCIENTIFICALLY established default position. It is NOT.

Nature != God because they are defined as entirely separate concepts. The attributes you assign to your life creating force is what makes it God. Otherwise, it's just nature.

[scarmig]

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

BTW . . . I apologize for any snarkiness early on . . . I appreciate the more serious attitude and intelligent responses you have been contributing to the discussion. It is a refreshing change from that of my usual antagonists.

Thank you for the compliment. I have always enjoyed your ability to articulate, even if I do not always agree with the strategies or points you make. It is the reason I find you engaging.

[MysticPhD]

Originally Posted by Konraden

Life evolved from simple to complex through a process that functions without any outside intelligent guidance.

Correction: life evolved from NON-life.The ONLY scientific part of that statement is the red portion. You assert an unnecessary adjective "outside" that has no relevance . . . and you cannot establish the bolded portion using scientific evidence. In fact . . the opposite is clearly evident.

The process itself does not follow any single path--instead random chance plays part into natural selection.

A completely meaningless and non-scientific statement. Random means "we don't have any idea . . . we are ignorant" and "natural selection" means by God's selection using His mandate of survival . . . "be fruitful and multiply."

An asteroid can kill off almost every large organism on Earth--opening doors to new and strange species.

An asteroid is part and parcel of God's design . . . everything is.

Studies into evolution have shown bacteria that have developed resistance to some chemicals, but when the processes was "restarted" (freezing a culture every 10,000 generations allows for "rewinding" to a period in time) before the resistance mutation took place, the bacteria didn't develop that again--a process that doesn't guide in any way other than "survive."

You are bitching about the method of guidance . . . not that it doesn't exist.

We have processes in which planets, stars, systems, clusters, and galaxies form--all without any intelligent order.

How did you determine this scientifically . . . the "without any intelligent order" part? How were the unintelligent processes identified from what would be intelligent ones?

There exist in space in distant galaxies, bursts of radiation that could kill us without ever knowing about it, should one happen in our area--I'd say that is very much not purposed towards life.

Why is it any less purposed than an asteroid truncating and restarting evolution? How did you scientifically determine this lack of purpose?

You have entire speculation about what you think might be purpose, or design, or intelligent workings--but our actual observations show life and humans to be very much not designed, not special, not purposed.

Again . . . how was all this scientifically established? What observations could possibly show no design, no specialness, or no purpose?

You believe otherwise.

You only believe all that you have said so far. There is no scientific basis for any of your characterizations of the science. You have merely indulged your penchant for ascribing scientific merit to our ignorance and inability to discern. In fact . . . you use our ignorance so frequently to support your view . . . it begins to resemble the fundamentalists.

Existence is evidence of existence--not intelligence. Dog's aren't wondering about what their God is going to do them if they **** on the carpet--human's have fooled themselves into thinking such.

You are getting yourself confused about the arguments now. Existence is evidence of a Creator. The processes (laws, constants, DNA, RNA, Survival, repeatability, etc.) that enable science and the evidence produced by it indicate an intelligence to what is created.

Excellent--you have a personal belief which is entirely based on subjective experiences. Existence is not evidence of God--especially one that you believe to be giving life purpose when none clearly exists.

More groundless assertion . . . there is nothing "clearly" about your assertion of purposelessness . . . and nothing scientific about it either.

Nature != God because they are defined as entirely separate concepts. The attributes you assign to your life creating force is what makes it God. Otherwise, it's just nature.

Nature and God are indistinguishable because it is an artificial distinction to assuage scientists' angst about religious persecution. You can almost hear the screams . . ."Never again! Never Again!"

[GldnRule]

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

Correction: life evolved from NON-life.The ONLY scientific part of that statement is the red portion. You assert an unnecessary adjective "outside" that has no relevance . . . and you cannot establish the bolded portion using scientific evidence. In fact . . the opposite is clearly evident. A completely meaningless and non-scientific statement. Random means "we don't have any idea . . . we are ignorant" and "natural selection" means by God's selection using His mandate of survival . . . "be fruitful and multiply." An asteroid is part and parcel of God's design . . . everything is. You are bitching about the method of guidance . . . not that it doesn't exist. How did you determine this scientifically . . . the "without any intelligent order" part? How were the unintelligent processes identified from what would be intelligent ones?Why is it any less purposed than an asteroid truncating and restarting evolution? How did you scientifically determine this lack of purpose? Again . . . how was all this scientifically established? What observations could possibly show no design, no specialness, or no purpose? You only believe all that you have said so far. There is no scientific basis for any of your characterizations of the science. You have merely indulged your penchant for ascribing scientific merit to our ignorance and inability to discern. In fact . . . you use our ignorance so frequently to support your view . . . it begins to resemble the fundamentalists. You are getting yourself confused about the arguments now. Existence is evidence of a Creator. The processes (laws, constants, DNA, RNA, Survival, repeatability, etc.) that enable science and the evidence produced by it indicate an intelligence to what is created. More groundless assertion . . . there is nothing "clearly" about your assertion of purposelessness . . . and nothing scientific about it either.Nature and God are indistinguishable because it is an artificial distinction to assuage scientists' angst about religious persecution. You can almost hear the screams . . ."Never again! Never Again!"

I've asked before...have you ever put this all together in some sort of publication...or maybe a thesis? I'd love to have (buy) a copy of it.

If you haven't, I'd be willing to pay you to do so...in order that I could have it between covers, in totality.

Fantastic!...right up there with the greatest of all time...anyone saying otherwise is jealous of your enlightenment or simply disagreeable to the concept. You really do need to find a publisher...the people of the world should have this available to them.