|
|
|
|
phillycheese
Aug 20, 2002, 5:25 AM
Post #76 of 181
(3160 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 11, 2002
Posts: 584
|
Steve: it's hard to argue opinions so let's stick to logical reasonings. (no offense meant by that, just trying to get away from opinion debates. they go nowhere). it isn't about a validation for our existence. as i stated earlier, with subjective morality, you end up validating every atrocity known to man as legitimate and not wrong. why? because there is no wrong. you still end up with the question as posited by Parfit: why there is anything rather than nothing. you still have to take on "faith" that something came out of nothing because there can't be any evidence for 'nothing'. there has always been the big "WHY" if you say that you are content to keep that question as is and take "in faith" that the world was created as you believe, then you have no basis on dibelief in other "faiths" as given by several people on this thread.
edited for spelling
[ This Message was edited by: phillycheese on 2002-08-19 22:27 ]
|
|
|
|
|
wildtrail
Aug 20, 2002, 5:34 AM
Post #77 of 181
(3160 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 6, 2002
Posts: 11063
|
I disbelieve because I've been there. I looked at all the angles, then made a choice.
Frankly, I think all that crap is for "validation". Maybe not individually, but certainly as a whole for life. So, there is no real way around my opinion on that. Plain and simple, I think people that use that need to feel that their life has meaning, when it doesn't. At least, not that way. Our lives have meaning by just what I said. The people you meet and love, what you learn and live. That makes life valid. Not some hierarchy.
Believe what you want. I'm just having fun in this thread. I've been very angry lately and this fine debate helps me get it out. In mentioning that, I should post a note:
LET ME KNOW IF I DO OFFEND. I'VE BEEN USING THIS THREAD TO BLOW OF MENTAL STEAM. I'M WATCHING MYSELF, BUT IF SOMETHING SLIPS, DON'T GO MENTAL ON ME. JUST PM ME OR POST IT HERE ASKING WHAT I MEANT. THANKS!
Okay, blah, blah, blah! I'd like to meet you and share eight hours around a fire and a case of beer. I think we could get downright philosophical on each other to the point we'd drive each other nuts! Sound like fun? Does to me!
Steve
|
|
|
|
|
phillycheese
Aug 20, 2002, 5:38 AM
Post #78 of 181
(3160 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 11, 2002
Posts: 584
|
also steve: in response to scientists seeing creation of somethings out of nothing is false. the environment for these experements in quantum physics are "created" by the scientists themselves. not once has anyone witnesses a spontanious creation of energy from nothing. if that is so, then the first law of thermodynamics is false.
|
|
|
|
|
wildtrail
Aug 20, 2002, 5:40 AM
Post #79 of 181
(3160 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 6, 2002
Posts: 11063
|
No, never said they see it from nothing into something. They've seen creation that supports the Big Bang Theory. They've caught the birth and death many times with supernovas.
That is what I meant. I didn't clarify. Sorry.
Steve
[ This Message was edited by: wildtrail on 2002-08-19 22:40 ]
|
|
|
|
|
phillycheese
Aug 20, 2002, 5:50 AM
Post #80 of 181
(3160 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 11, 2002
Posts: 584
|
i hate to nit-pick (not really ) but if they are witnessing the big bang in it's true state, or before it exploded/imploded (depending on what you believe) with the cosmic dust (elements, primarily hydrogen) all around, then they still have to get something out of nothing. here's another interesting tidbit. oxygen cannot exist as a singular element. it always has to be connected to either itself or something else. that is why on the periodic table you see oxygen as O2. so how did it get that way? was there one and then the other in succession, or did it spontaniously happen. what element was first. hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen?? if hydrogen was first, how did we get oxygen or nitrogen or any other element in the basic periodic table?? just a few things to chew on. good night all (for real this time)
|
|
|
|
|
wildtrail
Aug 20, 2002, 5:54 AM
Post #81 of 181
(3160 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 6, 2002
Posts: 11063
|
Oh, yes! I know all of this. I don't think I made it clear, initially. I believe the same thing you do, that nothing is impossible. I was just making reference to the fact that they have seen "creation" and death.
I don't believe in the concept of nothing. It is impossible to have, see, do nothing.
There is always something.
Steve
[ This Message was edited by: wildtrail on 2002-08-19 22:56 ]
|
|
|
|
|
phillycheese
Aug 20, 2002, 5:56 AM
Post #82 of 181
(3160 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 11, 2002
Posts: 584
|
i agree completely:) finally, some common ground here
|
|
|
|
|
wildtrail
Aug 20, 2002, 5:58 AM
Post #83 of 181
(3160 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 6, 2002
Posts: 11063
|
Yeah, I obviously neglected that. Just another reason I don't believe in "God's creation".
Common ground is good.
Steve
|
|
|
|
|
jackflash
Aug 20, 2002, 1:00 PM
Post #84 of 181
(3160 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 5, 2002
Posts: 483
|
As I understand it, current ideas on the Big Bang theory are still lacking in what happened during the first few moments of time after the Bang. From what I have heard, cosmologists are not even sure if the laws governing the universe are the same now as they were when energy, matter, and time were all being formed as well. It seems that holding to the idea that "something cannot come from nothing" may not be very accurate in the early stages of the Bang and may mean that the Bang itself does not have a cause or even need one.
Moreover, the universe does not seem to always operate on a deterministic cause and effect that would be necessary to follow a causal chain back to God. The behavior of subatomic particles are predictable only on an order of probability.
Earlier in this thread there was some confusion over evolution and the origin of the universe. Many attempts have been made to equate evolution with the origin of the universe and the origin of life in order to rap the former up in the problems of the latter, but the three are seperate. One can poetically talk about the "evolution of the cosmos" but it is not to be mistaken for biological evolution.
In addition, it is a mistake to view the development of structures such as DNA as arising completely from chance. Mutation is indeed a random process, but the way in which mutations influence organisms (or chains of self-replicating molecules) and their capacity to breed is not random at all.
|
|
|
|
|
phillycheese
Aug 20, 2002, 3:26 PM
Post #85 of 181
(3160 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 11, 2002
Posts: 584
|
Jackflash: you said,
"It seems that holding to the idea that "something cannot come from nothing" may not be very accurate in the early stages of the Bang and may mean that the Bang itself does not have a cause or even need one."
it is fallacious by all standards of logic to say that something can come from nothing. an uncaused cause is not possible. it takes as much faith to believe that as it does to believe in a Creator. otherwise the universe has to be timeless in and of itself. (read up on the Kalaam Cosmological Arguement posited by W.L. Craig or J.P. Moreland, to explain why this is not possible) the problem that modern scientists are having with the beginning of the universe is that without emperical data, they run into the field of metaphysics. scientists are not philosophers. i have a link on the third page to William Lane Craig's article about the beginning of the universe. check it out and tell me what you think. it is very comprehensive and on a scholarly level so some of it is difficult reading.
|
|
|
|
|
eowyn1025
Aug 20, 2002, 4:06 PM
Post #86 of 181
(3160 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 27, 2002
Posts: 267
|
Hey everyone...i just woke up from a niiiiiiice long night's sleep and WOW! a lot's been said since i left!
Steve: you're not offending anyone that i can see so don't worry. i don't agree with your opinion but i'm far from being offended.
Spyder: is that really what the mormons believe? life being a ring or whatever you said? b/c when those guys have come to my door (and a LOT of them have!) they always seem to believe most of what the Bible says + the book of mormon. and the Bible teaches creationism. i think that almost reminds me of the Catholic church in it's taking what it wants from the Bible and leaving the rest. see what i'm saying? i have a lot more reasons for disagreeing with the LDS but this was just an observation. All the mormons i've talked to have used their Bible not Book of mormon.
i think i'm just going to sit back and "listen" for a while since i've pretty much said my piece for the time being. unless someone says something that i can comment on. Nobody's answered my question from waaaaaay back yet: can anyone explain Feng Shui? what i've heard of it sounds kind of strange but i'm still not sure what it is....
|
|
|
|
|
blacksamba
Aug 20, 2002, 4:06 PM
Post #87 of 181
(3160 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 28, 2002
Posts: 128
|
I read the link philly cheese posted and I have to say I am unimpressed! I hate it when people say they are going to prove something in a logical proof then go about making arguments which look good on the exterior but fail the easiest of all tests.
if you did not read the article the entire thing hinges on the sylogism:
1. If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist.
2. Objective values do exist.
3. Therefore, God exists.
this is the form of logical proof that theists offer as actuall proof of the existance of god. Aside from being poor logic and invalid it is an absolutely unsound argument.
Consider an analogous argument.
1. If monkey's do not exist, objective moral values do not exist.
2. Objective values do exist
3. Therefore, Monkey's exist
or
1. If not A, then not B
2. B
3. Then A
or
1. If it is not snowing outside, then it is not below 32 degrees.
2. It is below 32 degrees
3. Therefore it is snowing
The above are simple refutations of the formulation of the existance of God. If you apply the logic used to make the statement you see what odd arguments you have to allow in order to hold the argument about God as valid. It is obvious that while we can think that God and objective values go hand in hand, there is nothing of logical value contained within the argument which links the two, the argument has the same logical weight when monkey is inserted into the equation in place of God. We can see it is obviously false, as we know monkey's and moral values are totally seperate ideas.
anyway i have to back to work but i will continue my lecture!
ben
|
|
|
|
|
eowyn1025
Aug 20, 2002, 4:13 PM
Post #88 of 181
(3160 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 27, 2002
Posts: 267
|
i think i answer for most who believe in God: this is why I believe in Him anyway: My belief is entirely faith based, not logic based. Frankly, i have never even tried to justify in my mind my belief in God through a logical procedure. Human logic would tell you not to believe in God...that's why it's a faith thing. Most people can't handle total faith in someone they've never seen but those that trust in God have found rewards from their faith. So i would say that, yes, if that logical progression that you mentioned is a person's only support for their belief in God, then that is pretty weak.
|
|
|
|
|
phillycheese
Aug 20, 2002, 4:23 PM
Post #89 of 181
(3160 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 11, 2002
Posts: 584
|
gwen: if faith is your only arguement for god then you cannot disagree with anyone elses "view" on god through their faith. Islam is right, Hinduism is right, LDS are right, and so on and so on. why? because of a subjective reasoning that hinges on a personal "faith."
|
|
|
|
|
joel_gibbel
Aug 20, 2002, 4:28 PM
Post #90 of 181
(3160 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 19, 2002
Posts: 129
|
Ever hear of this proof that God exists? I think it comes from Pascal, but I'm not positive.
There are 2 sides to the existence argument:
There is no God
OR
There is a God
There are 2 options concerning belief:
You believe in God
OR
You do not believe in God
Therefore there are 4 possible scenarios:
1. There is no God AND you believe in God
2. There is no God AND you don't believe in God
3. There is a God AND you believe in God
4. There is a God AND you don't believe in God
With each scenario there is an outcome upon death:
1. No big deal
2. No big deal
3. Eternal life with God
4. Eternal punishment
Considering these options and consequences, it stands to reason that any rational person would believe in God (and obey him).
[ This Message was edited by: joel_gibbel on 2002-08-21 13:19 ]
|
|
|
|
|
spydermonkey
Aug 20, 2002, 4:30 PM
Post #91 of 181
(3160 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 21, 2002
Posts: 1151
|
Gwen, we LDS people do believe in the fact that GOD created us. Adam and Eve were the first people on this earth. But we also believe in a prexistance were we live with our Heavenly Father and brother Jesus Christ.
We were intelligences there, able to make our own choices.
spyder
I believe in the Bible full heartedly, as long as it is translated correctly. The Book of Mormon is just another testiment of Christ and a companion book to the Bible.
|
|
|
|
|
phillycheese
Aug 20, 2002, 4:31 PM
Post #92 of 181
(3160 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 11, 2002
Posts: 584
|
blacksamba: it's good that you see the weakness, in the strict form of logic of that idea. however, i think you failed to read the rest of the debate and you left out 4 other arguements that were key. besides, the statement wasn't written as a proof, it was a summary of the proofs he made in the previous paragraphs. good try. read the whole thing. here are a few you left out (BTW: none of these are supposed to be used as proofs, although many can be, but more as summaries of proofs. they are as follows:
1. The fine-tuning of the initial conditions of the universe is due to either law, chance, or design.
2. It is not due to either law or chance.
3. Therefore, it is due to design.
Next one:
1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause
let's paint a whole picture and not just proof-text one statement and use it as evidence for your arguement.
|
|
|
|
|
phillycheese
Aug 20, 2002, 4:38 PM
Post #93 of 181
(3160 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 11, 2002
Posts: 584
|
spyder: please explain to me the authority which Joseph smith has to claim his translation from ancient egyption texts was another testament to the bible? seems to me that the book of mormon's laws and principles have been changed quite a bit. quite contrary to the Bible. your religion leaves itself open to anyone who claims they had a revelation from God to be put on the same level as the Bible.
edited because i can't spell
[ This Message was edited by: phillycheese on 2002-08-20 09:51 ]
|
|
|
|
|
spydermonkey
Aug 20, 2002, 4:52 PM
Post #94 of 181
(3160 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 21, 2002
Posts: 1151
|
To me, the Book of Mormon is the most correct book on the face of the earth, because it was translated through the power of God. The first thing that JS translated were the gold plates, which held the account of the ancient people of America and Christ's visit to them. The next thing he translated were the Dead Sea Scrolls, an account of Abraham and a few other Old Testiment prophets. I know, without a boubt in my mind that the BofM is true and I have complete faith and a testimony of my religion. I can't force anyone to believe what I believe, one just have to gain that faith for themselves and a testimony too. The only way to do that is to read and pray and ernestly study the scriptures (BofM and Bible together).
spyder
|
|
|
|
|
howitzer
Aug 20, 2002, 4:52 PM
Post #95 of 181
(3160 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 5, 2002
Posts: 2511
|
I, too, would like to thank everyone here for a conversation based on intelligence and good statements rather than the usual "I'm right you're wrong" thing. I got slammed on a religious thread a while back for saying that I don't believe in God, and here it's turned into good conversation. I see so many great arguments here I can see why philosophy has come such a long way and is so interesting. I have to agree with Steve whole-heartedly on most of his points, and congratulate him on making them in a pretty open non-offensive way. As a geologist and astronomer I have my religion - science. It is what I believe in and have faith in. I use the word faith meaning: Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing. (websters) It has other meanings of course! But my faith lies in science and what my knowledge of the natural world has given me. That does not mean that science destroyed God or anything - many of my collegues who studied and believe in God and the bible also believe that the Earth is 4.6 billion years old as I do. They see the bible as a story for humans to learn morals from. I just choose to dis-believe in God due to many of the reasons Steve has stated. I have studied religions as well - and it is my personal feeling that God was an invention of humans to help them feel better about death, war, and all the bad things that can happen. It feels a lot better to think that there is someone watching and rewarding those that are good, doesn't it? My grandfather is a Reverend, and I was brought up religiously. I think everyone should have that option in their lives - I have chosen to not go with the bible side of explaining the world and the universe and have 'faith' in science and its explanations. To say that there being no God leaves us with no purpose, no beauty etc. is a bit naive I think. God does not supply that for all people, myself included. For others it works. But look at all other life forms here that are content to live and die. Why are humans not like that? Why are our brains so big? Evolution. Not a chance but a progression of life. Humans are but a speck on the history of Earth. It has seen many come and all go - and humans will one day be a part of the history of the Earth - when humans are gone where will God be? keep up the good discussion! -Abi
|
|
|
|
|
spank_spank
Aug 20, 2002, 4:54 PM
Post #96 of 181
(3160 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 14, 2002
Posts: 480
|
The bible is a teaching tool at best. A very weak one at that. There are to many inconsistencies to have me believe in it. For instance, the time of Adam and Eve, people lived hundreds of years. What a bunch of crap.
Virgin Mary. Please. God did not impregnate her. Some dude did.
blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah,
|
|
|
|
|
phillycheese
Aug 20, 2002, 5:08 PM
Post #97 of 181
(3160 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 11, 2002
Posts: 584
|
well put howitzer. i really have appriciated how people have kept this as a 'discussion' and less of a 'debate' obviously, we are all pretty firm in our belief and so changing minds is not the goal here. i enjoy learing other perspectives that challenge my beliefs. knowledge is a process and everyone is contibuting to that process. let's keep it going.
|
|
|
|
|
eowyn1025
Aug 20, 2002, 5:17 PM
Post #98 of 181
(3160 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 27, 2002
Posts: 267
|
everyone, it's been great but i really really have got to end my presence on this thread! i have got so much to do to get ready for school and i'm getting nothing done! thank you for all of the opinions. My faith is unshaken but i've received a few comments that have caused me to want to go do some further study. i can in no way say i'm a scholar in this area...like anyone, i have questions (none of them concerning my basic faith)....so i thank you for the challenge to become more firm on why i believe what i believe. Now, for my sake, please do not ask me anymore questions b/c i know i'll answer back and i can't!! i have work here to do! (why is this site so addicting??????)
later everyone!
gwen
|
|
|
|
|
punk
Aug 20, 2002, 5:47 PM
Post #99 of 181
(3160 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 28, 2002
Posts: 1442
|
Quote:
1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. 1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. 1:4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. 1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day. 1:6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. 1:7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. 1:8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day. 1:9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so. 1:10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.
in psalm why King David say "because a thousand. of years for you like Yesterday" maybe we judging a situation we cant competence …I was wondering if u show a person in the dark age a computer will u be accused in devil worship and burn alive …I don’t think that u can take what is being written in the bible literally there are so many axioms, enigmas and riddles that we will come (in our limited mind) to conceive as paradox and as time progress it will reveal it true meaning and we can say …OHHH…that what they mean…u got to agree with me that the universe scientifically or ethnologically is un-limited and it is all matter of semantics you call it the rules of nature we call it god U call it the universe we call it the world… religion is birth from the need of human to explain the unknown or abnormal phenomenon and as we require more knowledge and progress scientifically the yesterday belief become today science project and so on …I do believe that human knowledge dose have limits but it have the greatest ability to adapt to more knowledge over time so in evolution maybe we are our own god…and maybe I have no clue of what I'm taking about becous I cant see the big picture…or maybe I should live my life to the fullest being the best man I could be…and TIME WILL TELL
[ This Message was edited by: punk on 2002-08-20 10:53 ]
|
|
|
|
|
jackflash
Aug 20, 2002, 5:53 PM
Post #100 of 181
(3160 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 5, 2002
Posts: 483
|
philly,
It is not "fallacious by all standards of logic to say that something can come from nothing." I don't know any logical principle that says things can't spontaneously pop into existence. Perhaps you only mean that it is a physical (rather than logical) impossibility. That something can't come from nothing seems like such an obvious conclusion from our everyday experience that we are tempted to withhold it from scrutiny. The problem is that we are dealing with a period in which the current laws that say "something can't come from nothing" may not have even existed. Physical laws are part of this universe; it would be a mistake to apply them to the beginning of the universe itself. Without such restrictions there is no reason why the universe could not have come from nothing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
