Religion

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

The existence of black holes and dark energy merely expanded our knowledge of physics. If the laws of physics are "broken", the "laws of physics" are changed to account for it. Since physics is a field of study trying to find out what truly is, it's impossible for something that is to contradict true physics. By existing, it's part of physics. It may disagree with our interpretation of physics, but it does not disagree with physics.

Nonsense. We have a set of laws and principles we define as the "laws of physics" and these hard and fast rules apply to everything, with the exception of things we've recently discovered, like black holes and dark energy. Those things seem to defy our understanding of and rules of physics. Nothing can travel faster than the speed of light, according to our understanding of physics... yet, this happens in black holes... does it 'nullify' this law of physics? Do the laws of physics change outside of the black hole? Or... is this simply a phenomenon we can't explain with our limited understanding of physics? Could it be possible that our physics are not applicable to everything in our universe? It would appear this is the case, and if our laws of physics don't apply in some cases, why would they apply in others? In other words, just because I can't give you physical proof there is a God, doesn't mean there isn't one.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Nonsense. We have a set of laws and principles we define as the "laws of physics" and these hard and fast rules apply to everything, with the exception of things we've recently discovered, like black holes and dark energy. Those things seem to defy our understanding of and rules of physics. Nothing can travel faster than the speed of light, according to our understanding of physics... yet, this happens in black holes... does it 'nullify' this law of physics? Do the laws of physics change outside of the black hole? Or... is this simply a phenomenon we can't explain with our limited understanding of physics? Could it be possible that our physics are not applicable to everything in our universe? It would appear this is the case, and if our laws of physics don't apply in some cases, why would they apply in others? In other words, just because I can't give you physical proof there is a God, doesn't mean there isn't one.

Things do not travel faster than the speed of light in black holes. Light cannot escape from them, but that's not the same thing. From the perspective of the person travelling at the speed of light, they are moving at infinite speed (their speed only seems limited from the perspective of an observer). It's not possible to travel at more than infinite speed. It's fully possible, however, that Einstein's theory of relativity is an incomplete understanding of the universe, just like Newton's theory of gravitation was erroneous in some ways and had to be updated by Einstein's general theory of relativity. If this were ever proven to be the case, that new theory would improve our knowledge of physics. Physics advances when the current understanding of physics is disproven, and when what we thought were the laws of physics are proven to be broken by some phenomena. It doesn't sit and a corner and whine about how this can't be so.

I still don't think you understand what I'm saying. If God existed, he'd be part of physics. If certain laws apply in some instances and not in others, those are two instances in which two different sets of knowledge are needed to understand the true physical universe. You can be wrong about physics, you can't violate it.

And you are attempting to assign a positive truth value to the question of God by saying that it can't be disproven (it has, in fact, been cleverly crafted to be an undisprovable myth). This isn't correct. When you don't know if something is true or not, you say you do not know. You do not say that it certainly exists and scream at people who are skeptical of your claims. You also don't say "we don't know!" over and over again at people who choose to say that we don't know instead of "it's true!" and act, for all practical purposes, as if it were true beyond a reasonable doubt. There are an infinite number of possible phenomena in the world that you can come up with and construct arguments for in a way that denies all attempts to inquire as to whether or not they are true. The only reasonable way to respond to this is to treat them as if they don't exist until you know that they do. It's not practical to believe in everything (it's not even really possible, as many of the claims directly contradict one another). And it's not honest to, as the religious so often do, select a certain few undisprovable claims and promote them when there's no reason to believe in any one over the other.

Let's imagine that there are two universes. One in which God doesn't exist, and one in which your unspecified spiritual entity that you claim to be all Gods ever exists. How would I tell if I were in one universe or the other? You yourself have said that there's no way to disprove or prove it. So, according to your own arguments, there's not anything I can do to tell which universe I'm in. Perhaps your unspecified spiritual entity explains a few things that can't be explained right now. So what? I can come up with all of the explanations I want for anything at all. That doesn't accomplish anything. Mere explanations, unaccompanied by evidence in their favor, are worthless.

And let's go further and compare the universe in which your unspecified spiritual entity exists to all of the other possible universes with similar entities. How could I tell your universe from the Shiah's Allah, or the Catholic Yahweh, or the Jewish Yahweh, or Thor, or the Great

 

[/MSG/]

Things do not travel faster than the speed of light in black holes. Light cannot escape from them, but that's not the same thing. From the perspective of the person travelling at the speed of light, they are moving at infinite speed (their speed only seems limited from the perspective of an observer). It's not possible to travel at more than infinite speed. It's fully possible, however, that Einstein's theory of relativity is an incomplete understanding of the universe, just like Newton's theory of gravitation was erroneous in some ways and had to be updated by Einstein's general theory of relativity. If this were ever proven to be the case, that new theory would improve our knowledge of physics. Physics advances when the current understanding of physics is disproven, and when what we thought were the laws of physics are proven to be broken by some phenomena. It doesn't sit and a corner and whine about how this can't be so.

I still don't think you understand what I'm saying. If God existed, he'd be part of physics. If certain laws apply in some instances and not in others, those are two instances in which two different sets of knowledge are needed to understand the true physical universe. You can be wrong about physics, you can't violate it.

And you are attempting to assign a positive truth value to the question of God by saying that it can't be disproven (it has, in fact, been cleverly crafted to be an undisprovable myth). This isn't correct. When you don't know if something is true or not, you say you do not know. You do not say that it certainly exists and scream at people who are skeptical of your claims. You also don't say "we don't know!" over and over again at people who choose to say that we don't know instead of "it's true!" and act, for all practical purposes, as if it were true beyond a reasonable doubt. There are an infinite number of possible phenomena in the world that you can come up with and construct arguments for in a way that denies all attempts to inquire as to whether or not they are true. The only reasonable way to respond to this is to treat them as if they don't exist until you know that they do. It's not practical to believe in everything (it's not even really possible, as many of the claims directly contradict one another). And it's not honest to, as the religious so often do, select a certain few undisprovable claims and promote them when there's no reason to believe in any one over the other.

Let's imagine that there are two universes. One in which God doesn't exist, and one in which your unspecified spiritual entity that you claim to be all Gods ever exists. How would I tell if I were in one universe or the other? You yourself have said that there's no way to disprove or prove it. So, according to your own arguments, there's not anything I can do to tell which universe I'm in. Perhaps your unspecified spiritual entity explains a few things that can't be explained right now. So what? I can come up with all of the explanations I want for anything at all. That doesn't accomplish anything. Mere explanations, unaccompanied by evidence in their favor, are worthless.

And let's go further and compare the universe in which your unspecified spiritual entity exists to all of the other possible universes with similar entities. How could I tell your universe from the Shiah's Allah, or the Catholic Yahweh, or the Jewish Yahweh, or Thor, or the Great C'THULHU

Figured that's what you wanted to finish with.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

For some reason the bottom third of my post got cut off. The site is lagging and might have screwed my post up I did try to edit it while it was lagging and might have screwed it up myself, can a mod check this?

 

[/MSG/]

Leave it as I have finished.

Though according to the Mythos, C'Thulhu isn't even a god.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Yeah, I am not going to write out all of that again. Enjoy the first 2/3 of my response.

 

[/MSG/]

Yeah, I am not going to write out all of that again. Enjoy the first 2/3 of my response.

As always. <3

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

If you can't theorize rationally, what caused the universe to be created, how can you conclude it wasn't by the hand of God?

Why God and not anything else?

Yes, if it can't be rationally explained and there is no theory of physics to apply... it certainly DOES imply the work of some superior force or intelligence.

1.) Our current understanding of physics doesn't not have a theory which explains it and also has evidence behind it (there are theories). That doesn't mean there is no possible theory. Why do you claim that there we will never have a theory? Perhaps we will one day? Perhaps we will know forever? Not knowing /= God.

2.) Why would it imply the work of some superior force or intelligence? At one point there was no adequate theory of gravitation. Now we have one. And it doesn't require God. It's not exactly a huge leap in logic to think that the same thing could happen again. God has no evidence for him. That means he's got nothing more going for him than all of those other theories that don't have evidence for them. Give me one reason I should believe in God rather than some other explanation that has no evidence going for it? Again, when science doesn't know, it say it doesn't know. When religion doesn't know, it say God.

You can dismiss that possibility, but again, you are contradicting science to do so.

I never dismissed it. Not believing in something doesn't mean that you dismiss it. You, on the other hand, ARE dismissing all other possibilities by believing in God. And you can't give me one single reason I should do this.

Science says we must keep asking questions, and we can't discount ANY possibility on the basis of our emotions. That's what you are doing here, dismissing the possibility because you don't want to believe in the possibility that God may exist.

No, you are denying all other possibilities by believing in God. I'm not going to treat something that has no evidence for it as if it exists. There's no reason for you to believe in God and thus deny all other claims based on other evidence. You do not want me to not dismiss the possibility of God. You are being intellectually dishonest in saying so. You want me to be like you, explicitly accept the existence of one random superpowerful undetectable being, for no other reason, and thusly deny all other possibilities. I refuse to do that. Unlike the religious, I refuse to say I know that which I do not.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Actually, science doesn't fill in anything, YOU fill in 'complete', based on your limited knowledge and understanding. You have made a definitive determination on what is true and what isn't, and you refuse to examine possibility further.

What would that determination be? That I don't know? This is ridiculous. You are accusing me of the very thing you are doing. You said you KNOW that your unspecified spiritual entity exists. How do you know it wasn't Thor, or Yahweh, or the collapse of a quantum fluctuation? Why do you dismiss these possiblies and say "This God exists!", assigning a positive truth value to that claim, and thusly, through logic, assigning a negative truth value to all other contradictory claims? There's no evidence for it! You've framed it in a way that there can be no inquiries into its existence! You've made the very act of making an inquiry into its existence an affront to it! That's ridiculous! If I accept such a thing as true, there's no reason I should accept any other argument of that form is untrue. I can reason anything into existence with that kind of logic.

That isn't science, it is the antithesis of science, actually. Science is supposed to NOT fill in the blanks, but continue to ask questions... you've stopped asking questions because you believe you know the answers. Yet, you admit, you DON'T know the answers. Odd.

The only honest answer to something that you don't have the answers for is that you don't have the answers. Saying "God" would be dishonest. It would be lying. You are a liar for claiming that God exists. You do not merely accept the possibility that it exists, that is a logical facade, a lie as well, just something you say so that you seem more open-minded than you are. You have given a definitive answer, and criticize me for giving the apparently definitive answer of "I have no definitive answer", rather than your definitive answer. You are a hypocrite and an ass.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

I still don't think you understand what I'm saying. If God existed, he'd be part of physics.

Which brings us back to what I originally said to AOI ...define "exist" first... If you mean, does God exist in some physical form? No.. but then, a supernatural entity wouldn't exist in a physical form, or it wouldn't be supernatural. So when you ask, does God "exist" the obvious answer is NO... there is no physical evidence of a physical existence of a God. I know of absolutely NO ONE who would argue otherwise, do you?

This doesn't resolve whether or not a supernatural force is responsible for our existence and creation. All of the evidence we can observe, points to some profound intelligence, to create a universe so complex we can't even comprehend its physics... just the intricate complexities of life on Earth, the climatic cycles which enable certain plants to grow, which provide certain creatures nourishment, without which they couldn't provide other animals nourishment... ocean tides which enable certain species to reproduce... moon phases, the moon itself... the wobble of Earth's rotation which gives us seasons to be able to grow a variety of crops.. fruits which only flourish in certain periods of the cycle... all the intricate details which go into the continuous and contigeous circle of life.... How can any objective, rational, educated, unbiased person, conclude there can't be a God?

Let's imagine that there are two universes. One in which God doesn't exist, and one in which your unspecified spiritual entity that you claim to be all Gods ever exists. How would I tell if I were in one universe or the other? You yourself have said that there's no way to disprove or prove it. So, according to your own arguments, there's not anything I can do to tell which universe I'm in. Perhaps your unspecified spiritual entity explains a few things that can't be explained right now. So what? I can come up with all of the explanations I want for anything at all. That doesn't accomplish anything. Mere explanations, unaccompanied by evidence in their favor, are worthless.

Right... So when you bone heads attempt to explain away 70,000 years of mankind WORSHIPING... it is worthless! When you line up to say... Oh... it's because man needs something to explain the unexplained! ....Really? Well, why does man need to have something to explain the unexplained? You see, you have to keep asking questions, and not draw conclusion to the topic. That is precisely what science seeks to do, continuing to ponder the possibilities, not conclude.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Which brings us back to what I originally said to AOI ...define "exist" first... If you mean, does God exist in some physical form? No.. but then, a supernatural entity wouldn't exist in a physical form, or it wouldn't be supernatural. So when you ask, does God "exist" the obvious answer is NO... there is no physical evidence of a physical existence of a God. I know of absolutely NO ONE who would argue otherwise, do you?

So there's no way to tell if it exists, and I have to believe in it anyway? Why shouldn't I believe in any other things that has no evidence for it? Because yours is super? Please, try harder next time.

The natural is that which exists. Natural evidence is evidence that exists. The "supernatural" is merely a euphism that certain people have given to certain phenomena they've logically constructed in such a way so that it can't be detected by any means. It's just sophism. If you can't prove something doesn't exist, stop wasting my time. Don't put "super" in front of a word that means "something that exists", ascribe it to as an attribute of something that there's no evidence for and is described in a way that prevents any possible inquiry into its existence, and pretend that you've accomplished something clever. It's stupid to think that the defining trait of a super-existing thing would be that you can't tell if it exists. Is everything with no evidence for it super-existing? Why is only your subset of claims without evidence in superexistence? How could I tell any other claim that has no evidence for it from your superexisting things?

This doesn't resolve whether or not a supernatural force is responsible for our existence and creation.

Well naturally. Since we've defined something in such a way that there's no evidence for it and there's no way to tell if it exists or not, how could we? But why would I take such a silly concept seriously? I could prove anything using that logic. Why does your superexisting thing exist and not other superexisting things? Give me one reason, Dix.

All of the evidence we can observe, points to some profound intelligence,

Not really. This universe looks exactly like one in which there's no God. For as long as we've existed, we've found more and more things we had ascribed to God that, in fact, didn't really require him after all. There's never been anything that's happened that has made the existence of God more likely.

to create a universe so complex we can't even comprehend its physics...

Not knowing everything /= God exists.

just the intricate complexities of life on Earth, the climatic cycles which enable certain plants to grow, which provide certain creatures nourishment, without which they couldn't provide other animals nourishment... ocean tides which enable certain species to reproduce... moon phases, the moon itself... the wobble of Earth's rotation which gives us seasons to be able to grow a variety of crops.. fruits which only flourish in certain periods of the cycle... all the intricate details which go into the continuous and contigeous circle of life.... How can any objective, rational, educated, unbiased person, conclude there can't be a God?

You are unable to fathom how anyone couldn't agree with you? So fucking what? How is this even an argument?

Dixie, how would I tell a universe in which all of that happened naturally from one in which God did it? Why do you discount the possibility that it could have happened naturally? The fact that YOU don't understand how it could have happened naturally doesn't mean it didn't happen naturally. The universe is not limited by Dixie's imagination.

Right... So when you bone heads attempt to explain away 70,000 years of mankind WORSHIPING...

Society has only existed for 5,000 years. The homo-sapien species itself hasn't even existed for 70,000 years. Ignoring your erroneous timeline and answering the question anyway, yes. A lot of people worshiping something doesn't prove anything. Lot's of people have long believed in lot's of things that later turned out to be untrue. It's not like many of the things they "worshipped" were simialar to your unspecified spiritual entity anyway. So many holes have simply been poked into the logic of the religious that they've retreated to the farthest extremes. God once lived on mount Olympus; then he lived in the heavens; now he lives in another dimension. Besides, few of them worshipped your unspecified spiritual entity which claims to be all God's. Why shouldn't I worship one of the many God's who've claimed to be the only God? Why is there not one God?

it is worthless! When you line up to say... Oh... it's because man needs something to explain the unexplained! ....Really? Well, why does man need to have something to explain the unexplained? You see, you have to keep asking questions, and not draw conclusion to the topic. That is precisely what science seeks to do, continuing to ponder the possibilities, not conclude.

The unexplained is the unexplained. The fact that something is unexplained does not automatically mean "God did it!" It means it's unexplained. Prove to me that Thor didn't create the universe. If you can't do that, clearly you're close-minded for not believing in Thor. Since it's ignorant to not explicitly believe in that which we can't prove doesn't exist, logically, we must believe in all that we can't prove doesn't exist. We can't pick and choose, Dix.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Religion: primitive people's attempting to describe the unknown, and doing a shitty job of it.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

So there's no way to tell if it exists, and I have to believe in it anyway? Why shouldn't I believe in any other things that has no evidence for it? Because yours is super? Please, try harder next time.

Well, if it's real, it's not mine, it's everyones. Other things? Such as what? I don't know.. What does it have to do with human spirituality?

The natural is that which exists. Natural evidence is evidence that exists. The "supernatural" is merely a euphism that certain people have given to certain phenomena they've logically constructed in such a way so that it can't be detected by any means. It's just sophism.

Mere explanations, unaccompanied by evidence in their favor, are worthless. --Waterdork (circa 11:33pm Yesterday)

Supernatural, which is what God would be, is not of the physical world. Therefore, physical evidence isn't expected or required. What is required, is faith. In spite of what you might think, you are fully capable of having faith, you practice it all the time. In fact, you could say, Atheists have an enormous amount of faith to determine the answer to God is there is no God.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Religion: primitive people's attempting to describe the unknown, and doing a shitty job of it.

95% of the world population believes in something greater than self. We are spiritual creatures. Spiritual belief plays a huge role in who we are and what we are. It has thrived in man for all of man's known existence, through centuries of wars and oppression, through millions of martyrs and saints, through kings and empires, all unable to extinguish man's desire to worship.

I doubt your profound wisdom is going to change that.

kay:

 

[Lowaicue]

95% of the world population believes in something greater than self. We are spiritual creatures. Spiritual belief plays a huge role in who we are and what we are. It has thrived in man for all of man's known existence, through centuries of wars and oppression, through millions of martyrs and saints, through kings and empires, all unable to extinguish man's desire to worship.

I doubt your profound wisdom is going to change that.

kay:

Even if we accept that man has been 'spiritual' for eons, never before have we had the knowledge recently gleaned from Hubble and several other space telescopes and, in seven years, the James Webb telescope that can show speeding galaxies still in their first seconds of existence at the far corners of the universe.
The reason for the invention of the various gods no longer exists. The bible, for instance, tells us nothing about life in all its aspects, that we do not now know from scientific exploration. It can also be shown (no I will not) that far from helping man's quest for reason, the bible (for bible read whichever holy book you hold in high regard) has hindered it. Religious teachings have had to change more during the last century than in their entire prior existence. They have had to change because man's knowledge has overtaken the supposed word of the various gods, goddesses and goddettes..
So, all that remains is a personal requirement by some, for the comfort of a huge father figure and an entity to take the blame and responsibility that some people cannot take upon themselves. I don't have a problem with that. Take that comfort and enjoy it, but please do not try to substitute this imaginary comfort blanket for the fantastic discoveries, yes and questions, that science has brought us.
Man's creation of a god in his own image, while giving comfort to some and power to others is sold harder than baked beans and Disney. They all share a commonality. They are all dispensable.
Finally please, never, never preach as truth, the fairy tales of theism without first describing them as such.

 

[The Dude]

Then send your kids to public school. Paying for 13 years of catholic school is a choice you made.

I'm going to assume you haven't been through that kind of pain, I'll give you a pass on that one.

 

[The Dude]

most of the 5% who don't believe prob have higher educations spiritual Bubba!!!

 

[WinterBorn]

I'm going to assume you haven't been through that kind of pain, I'll give you a pass on that one.

I have indeed been thru that kind of pain. I moved so my kids could be in a better public school.

If the public education system sucks so bad, bitch about that. But don't get pissed at the catholics for providing you an alternative.

 

[The Dude]

I'll get pissed at whom ever I please.
I might ask you next time, how bout you hold your breath waiting

 

[WinterBorn]

most of the 5% who don't believe prob have higher educations spiritual Bubba!!!

If thinking that makes you feel better, then go ahead and think it.

I've been to religious functions held by the SIV research group at Johns Hopkins and worked with an interfaith charity group from Emory Univ. School of Medicine. But I guess those folks might not be as educated as you.