O.T. .::THE SCIENCE AND PHILOSOPHY THREAD::.

[BKlutch]

Dunno if religion and Theology are actually philosophy. They certainly aren't science. There is no way to demonstrate the validity of religion. So it comes down a matter of faith (religion) vs. what you can actually observe (science). So does religion belong in this thread?

"God created the first humans as heterosexuals and commanded them to procreate and populate the earth with perfect humans" is a statement you can either accept, or challenge and ask for proof.

To accept the Bible literally and at face value flies in the face of all the science that confirms the Earth is far more than 6,000 years old. To not accept the physics that shows the age of the universe would imply that nothing science has predicted based on those principles could possibly be accurate. If that's the case, then all those predictions made from these scientific theories should fail.

But they don't fail.

The atomic bomb, electronics, and the very computers and internet we're using for this discussion are based on the scientific principles that derive from the physics that disputes the literal interpretation of the Bible.

If you want to say, "The Bible should not be taken literally, but it's meaning is still true," I can't dispute that. Nobody ever could either prove or dispute that.

If you want to say, "God created this world solely to trick us into wrongly believing that science is right, as he is completely fooling all our senses and making us perceive we live in a world that doesn't exist," I also be unable to dispute that. I would say WTF.

[And100]

Either way, homosexual inclination wasn't of God's intent but is likely a byproduct of imperfection, which will be removed from our genes.

Again, I fully accept some people are uncomfortable by things that aren't reflection of themselves. But you don't seem to appreciate how this homogenized, whitewashed ideal doesn't appeal to others. It's a bad marketing job.

Yes we are uncomfortable living in a dangerous, terrifying, violent world gone mad, so we look intently for God to fix it.

Punchline is it's all there is.

Wanting to be equal to God is the problem that got us into this mess in the first place, instead of being content with our position of being a creation, and not gods ourselves.

Utterly circular 'logic.' You shouldn't want to be smarter and more enlightened and want to explore and understand the larger Universe rather than a Western reflection of life on Earth, because that's the source of evil.

Do you recognize that's circular and self-defining?

Humans aren't created as robots; we are endowed with free will.

Free will is not intelligence. Knowledge and education is a known predictor of lawfulness and less violence. God could make us much smarter, more capable of rationalizing better decisions. He chose not to.

This viewpoint is reliant upon the inability to imagine ourselves as any different than we are. God could have given us better tools to pass his tests.

Again, he chose not to.

The logical flaw is inherent. That we can see it is our biggest flaw.

We could simply be better by design, IF we were in fact designed. Either we weren't or God made us sooo limited in capacity on purpose. The latter option sounds awful to me. The view of God is petty and bitter and small.

In God's new system of things here on earth, we have no idea just how intelligent we will become once we reach perfection, again we have to wait and see.

Which makes whoever designed it that way an ****, as I said.

God created all things, nobody makes the rules. This complicated waiting game you describe is entirely superfluous. It serves no logical purpose other than to rationalize how God and the unspeakable and unimaginable pain and suffering of innocents can co-exist.

That you can imagine not a person of free will, but a sick, chemically imbalanced person, perhaps also a victim of abuse, should be allowed to rape and torture children, perhaps for days or weeks months or years, before murdering them. That you can imagine how incomprehensible what was happening to them must have been, and to take comfort that someday they'll be made to forget, and to view god positively is astounding to me.

It's intellectual whiteout to me.

Faith exists for the same reason it always has and does, to help people with limited curiosity and imagination make sense of their existence and circumstance.

Humans invent Gods. Always have.

[Iron Mantis]

Debating theology in a science and philosophy thread is kind of pointless from either side don't you think? Trying to get one side to totally embrace the other's point of view is an exercise in futility.

Just agree to disagree and move on.

We were having an intelligent discussion, and there's nothing wrong with that. I'm satisfied with how it went. Whether or not we embrace one another's view is irrelevant; I explained my belief and he explained his, and all is well.

Others who read this thread may gain something from my explanation, and I'm content with that.

But that's not reality. The thing that makes humans humans is their ability to choose to do whatever they want, right or wrong, agreeable or not. To grow, to fail, to achieve through strife and hardship that usually others (but sometimes themselves) inflict on them.

'Tis true but true peace, unity, and happiness lies within being humble and modest enough to realize we are better off with the direction of our Creator, which save ourselves the misery that ensues from being without Him.

"Wisdom is proved righteous by its works"; in one sense, meaning whether a course is truly wise is proven through the results it yields. In a world solely under God's rule, misery, suffering, pain and strife would't exist.

Trial and error would be limited to whatever our hobbies and creative endeavors bring about; but no misery would ever be the result.

I think Theology is fine in this thread.

I agree. What other thread do we have to place it in ?

I'm not saying the previous post is wrong for this thread. I think that Science and Philosophy or Religion are not mutually compatible, and to lump them all together will cause needless friction. The scientific way revolves around what we can see, experience, feel, examine, and analyze. The religious experience involves faith, and probably cannot be proven or disproven if the try for a thousand more years.

No need to backseat mod. The posts in this thread I'm not interested in, I bypass, and anyone else can do the same.

The religious experience, in my belief at least, revolves around investigating the facts. The fact we can't see God doesn't change the fact we can see clear evidence of His handiwork all throughout the universe.

The more science discovers, and peel away the layers of how things work, the more evident it becomes to many that there is no random accident involved in the workings of the universe: from the origin of life, how birth works, the systems within our body, the marvels of the brain, the coded languages in the DNA molecule and how cells subsequently read and write them, the water cycles, the earth's protective atmosphere, the fine tuning of physical forces in the universe, among other things give many sound reason to believe.

If you don't that's your choice, but many actual scientists do not dismiss the possibility of an intelligent Creator, especially after biology keeps making remarkable discoveries on the microscopic level which are not compatible with random accidents.

Evolution cannot be observed, cannot be reproduced or experimentally tested even in a controlled environment, cannot make accurate predictions(like a scientific theory should) yet many cling to it as "science" but with religious faith and fervor.

[Iron Mantis]

Dunno if religion and Theology are actually philosophy. They certainly aren't science. There is no way to demonstrate the validity of religion. So it comes down a matter of faith (religion) vs. what you can actually observe (science). So does religion belong in this thread?

"God created the first humans as heterosexuals and commanded them to procreate and populate the earth with perfect humans" is a statement you can either accept, or challenge and ask for proof.

To accept the Bible literally and at face value flies in the face of all the science that confirms the Earth is far more than 6,000 years old. To not accept the physics that shows the age of the universe would imply that nothing science has predicted based on those principles could possibly be accurate. If that's the case, then all those predictions made from these scientific theories should fail.

But they don't fail.

The atomic bomb, electronics, and the very computers and internet we're using for this discussion are based on the scientific principles that derive from the physics that disputes the literal interpretation of the Bible.

If you want to say, "The Bible should not be taken literally, but it's meaning is still true," I can't dispute that. Nobody ever could either prove or dispute that.

If you want to say, "God created this world solely to trick us into wrongly believing that science is right, as he is completely fooling all our senses and making us perceive we live in a world that doesn't exist," I also be unable to dispute that. I would say WTF.

I already explained that the Bible never says the earth is 6,000 years old. The creative "days" are unspecified periods of time, and the expression "day" in that sense, is used many more times in the Bible.

[And100]

'Tis true but true peace, unity, and happiness lies within being humble and modest enough to realize we are better off with the direction of our Creator, which save ourselves the misery that ensues from being without Him.

Again, that's self-fulfilling logic. That's writing the rules to make concurrently explain the rules.

God could have made us capable of standing on our own two feet. That again, was a choice. This premise is - God created as he did to prove he's God and necessary

That's petty, and contradictory.

The religious experience, in my belief at least, revolves around investigating the facts. The fact we can't see God doesn't change the fact we can see clear evidence of His handiwork all throughout the universe.

Not evidence, assumption. Assuming things are a creation of a God is not scientific method.

If you don't that's your choice, but many actual scientists do not dismiss the possibility of an intelligent Creator, especially after biology keeps making remarkable discoveries on the microscopic level which are not compatible with random accidents.[/quote]

I'll remind you, the Western version of God is a very specific creation. The theorectical existence of a greater intelligence, even a "designer" does not in any way lead to the conclusion this intelligence is one and the same as the Judeo-Christian father-figure/custodian we imagine as "God." That's entirely a product of flawed logic. 'There is a God and only one God and we can't be mistaken so any greater intelligence has to be THIS God.'

I understand how and why this leap of logic is made, but it isn't rooted in evidence and sound method.

[Iron Mantis]

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bXXIXNP_7NQ[/youtube]

That was an interesting video.

Carl Sagan had some interesting quotes which I found interesting being that he is a very respected scientific mind.

Sagan commented in 1981:

"An atheist is someone who is certain that God does not exist, someone who has compelling evidence against the existence of God. I know of no such compelling evidence. Because God can be relegated to remote times and places and to ultimate causes, we would have to know a great deal more about the universe than we do now to be sure that no such God exists. To be certain of the existence of God and to be certain of the nonexistence of God seem to me to be the confident extremes in a subject so riddled with doubt and uncertainty as to inspire very little confidence indeed."

In interview in 1996 he pointed said "I'm agnostic".

This writing Sagan wrote of Ptolemy was pretty sobering, :

“His Earth-centered universe held sway for 1,500 years, a reminder that intellectual capacity is no guarantee against being dead wrong.”

[Iron Mantis]

'Tis true but true peace, unity, and happiness lies within being humble and modest enough to realize we are better off with the direction of our Creator, which save ourselves the misery that ensues from being without Him.

Again, that's self-fulfilling logic. That's writing the rules to make concurrently explain the rules.

God could have made us capable of standing on our own two feet. That again, was a choice. This premise is - God created as he did to prove he's God and necessary

That's petty, and contradictory.

The religious experience, in my belief at least, revolves around investigating the facts. The fact we can't see God doesn't change the fact we can see clear evidence of His handiwork all throughout the universe.

Not evidence, assumption. Assuming things are a creation of a God is not scientific method.

If you don't that's your choice, but many actual scientists do not dismiss the possibility of an intelligent Creator, especially after biology keeps making remarkable discoveries on the microscopic level which are not compatible with random accidents.

I'll remind you, the Western version of God is a very specific creation. The theorectical existence of a greater intelligence, even a "designer" does not in any way lead to the conclusion this intelligence is one and the same as the Judeo-Christian father-figure/custodian we imagine as "God." That's entirely a product of flawed logic. 'There is a God and only one God and we can't be mistaken so any greater intelligence has to be THIS God.'

I understand how and why this leap of logic is made, but it isn't rooted in evidence and sound method.

We see what a world is like without God's direction being followed by all; it resulted in this conversation due to a poster saying "WTF is wrong with people...." We see carnage, bedlam, and untold misery. The alternative is experienced by relatively few, several million, and while living as a global unified group of peaceful, happy people, we are still subjected to the ills of living in this wicked system.

By and large, we have a spiritual paradise already because we apply God's laws and principles; we are truly happy, unified, and at peace. Once God removes this system, then we will experience joy on a whole different level we cannot even imagine.

The western version of God as a religion originated in the east, but it makes sense to many and we are confident in our hope as Jesus is proof that it's a certainty.

I and many others who will benefit from the blessings God's Kingdom will bring are okay with not being capable of "standing on our own two feet". We take delight in tapping into the mind of, and getting direction from, one who has enough intelligence and power to Create the universe and everything in it. If you believe that's "petty and contradictory", you are entitled to that opinion.

[And100]

I and many others who will benefit from the blessings God's Kingdom will bring are okay with not being capable of "standing on our own two feet". We take delight in tapping into the mind of, and getting direction from, one who has enough intelligence and power to Create the universe and everything in it. If you believe that's "petty and contradictory", you are entitled to that opinion.

But I make genuine attempt to have some one explain it to me and the result is modernized scripture rather than plain language.

God made you inferior to him, on purpose. This contradicts one of the guiding principles of our culture and way of life - we want our children to be better, smarter, have more opportunity than us. We want to keep the line moving, not spend eternity in one place.

I can't imagine wanting to keep my child under my coattails for eternity. I want them to surpass me. I can't imagine my child wanting to be there.

He designed a game in which he sits at the head and defies all logic of an advanced intelligence to me. That strikes me as a product of a limited imagination.

I can't imagine an intelligence capable of creating a sun having any interest in Joe Smith from Stony Brook worshipping him and acknowledging he's the man.

I'm really tying to have a plain language as to what the appeal is, the response back is just repeating the premise that it is appealing, which I clearly already know.

Maybe Loki was right in the Avengers. Maybe being ruled feels good and right. Maybe it is our natural state to serve rather than lead.

[ibraheim718]

It simply comes down to being afraid of dying. People can't handle the fact (because we really don't know otherwise) that this one human life we have is all we get. No after life, no heaven, no hell. So we create and then devote our lives to religion because of the promises of something more after we die. Religion is spawned from a fear of dying.

[Capn'O]

We could simply be better by design, IF we were in fact designed. Either we weren't or God made us sooo limited in capacity on purpose. The latter option sounds awful to me. The view of God is petty and bitter and small.

The Gnostics, in fact, claimed the view you describe was developed by the devil and inserted by him into mainline religious thought. Clever leap of thinking, I say.

[Capn'O]

It simply comes down to being afraid of dying. People can't handle the fact (because we really don't know otherwise) that this one human life we have is all we get. No after life, no heaven, no hell. So we create and then devote our lives to religion because of the promises of something more after we die. Religion is spawned from a fear of dying.

How's THAT for your Knicks forum

[ibraheim718]

It simply comes down to being afraid of dying. People can't handle the fact (because we really don't know otherwise) that this one human life we have is all we get. No after life, no heaven, no hell. So we create and then devote our lives to religion because of the promises of something more after we die. Religion is spawned from a fear of dying.

How's THAT for your Knicks forum

Melooooo!!!!!! He's a bully!!!! Suckerzzz is haterzzz!!! Melo's a bully!!!

[moocow007]

It simply comes down to being afraid of dying. People can't handle the fact (because we really don't know otherwise) that this one human life we have is all we get. No after life, no heaven, no hell. So we create and then devote our lives to religion because of the promises of something more after we die. Religion is spawned from a fear of dying.

How's THAT for your Knicks forum

I agree with all 3 of you guys (you, Ibra and the DL).

[Iron Mantis]

It simply comes down to being afraid of dying. People can't handle the fact (because we really don't know otherwise) that this one human life we have is all we get. No after life, no heaven, no hell. So we create and then devote our lives to religion because of the promises of something more after we die. Religion is spawned from a fear of dying.

Not exactly. Not everyone is "afraid" of returning back to the state we were in before we were conceived: nonexistence.

Religion is spawned from the natural sense of spirituality we are endowed with as humans. Some are conscious of their spiritual need, and these ones Jesus declared as "happy" because they act on it; but not all do.

When most contemplate the vast awesomeness and wonders of the universe with the infinite complexity of the creation within it, they are moved with a need to seek the Creator of it, and find what His purpose for Creating us is, and what is our place within His creation.

A scientific mind you respect, Carl Sagan, said this: "Science is not only compatible with spirituality; it is a profound source of spirituality. When we recognize our place in an immensity of light-years and in the passage of ages, when we grasp the intricacy, beauty, and subtlety of life, then that soaring feeling, that sense of elation and humility combined, is surely spiritual."

Any sort of everlasting life God promises by way of adhering to His organizational way of doing things is merely a perk, a free gift, that we certainly don't mind taking hold of.

[be reasonable]

OH wow!!! this thread is back... It seems the Conversation has gotten a bit theological as well. As I check back I was the second one to comment on it as well and that was over 5 years ago lol... Ok time to read all the posts and see whats new.

[Iron Mantis]

I and many others who will benefit from the blessings God's Kingdom will bring are okay with not being capable of "standing on our own two feet". We take delight in tapping into the mind of, and getting direction from, one who has enough intelligence and power to Create the universe and everything in it. If you believe that's "petty and contradictory", you are entitled to that opinion.

But I make genuine attempt to have some one explain it to me and the result is modernized scripture rather than plain language.

God made you inferior to him, on purpose. This contradicts one of the guiding principles of our culture and way of life - we want our children to be better, smarter, have more opportunity than us. We want to keep the line moving, not spend eternity in one place.

I can't imagine wanting to keep my child under my coattails for eternity. I want them to surpass me. I can't imagine my child wanting to be there.

He designed a game in which he sits at the head and defies all logic of an advanced intelligence to me. That strikes me as a product of a limited imagination.

I can't imagine an intelligence capable of creating a sun having any interest in Joe Smith from Stony Brook worshipping him and acknowledging he's the man.

I'm really tying to have a plain language as to what the appeal is, the response back is just repeating the premise that it is appealing, which I clearly already know.

Maybe Loki was right in the Avengers. Maybe being ruled feels good and right. Maybe it is our natural state to serve rather than lead.

God isn't handing over His position as God almighty. Is it reasonable to believe He should truly do so? He is the Creator, so he rightfully deserves to be acknowledged, honored, and glorified as such.

Personally if I, from scratch, made an intelligent life form, or even an AI, not of my exact nature, and it surpassed me in intelligence, wisdom, and power, I think it could likely become presumptuous, gun for my spot and maybe even try to eliminate me or want me to worship it; I personally am not in compliance with such a possibility occurring. That strikes me as being incredibly naive.

God is Holy in the absolute degree and is incapable of corruptibility. The creation is not incapable of choosing to sin, they have free will, so if they should CHOOSE to become presumptuous and God actually made them more powerful than Himself, then what? How does this benefit the Creator in any way? Imagine if God made the first righteous beings who turned rebels more powerful than himself. They would have usurped his position entirely, eliminated Him, and all who side with Him.

A child you gave birth to, raised, and nurtured, no matter how smart or successful they become after reaching adulthood, we would be proud of, and hopefully they would continue to honor and respect you as the one responsible for bringing them into this world. Sadly this isn't always the case, but one would hope so.

It's difficult to imagine God being interested in us personally, but when you analyze His activities towards humans then it becomes glaringly clear that He is VERY interested. One action is He sent His first act of creation, Jesus, into the world in order to reclaim what Adam lost: the prospect of humans having everlasting life on a peaceful earth.

If Loki said that, He was right It's natural for us to want to be lead, we are hardwired that way, and ultimately it's for the benefit and prosperity of the human race.

[And100]

When most contemplate the vast awesomeness and wonders of the universe with the infinite complexity of the creation within it, they are moved with a need to seek the Creator of it, and find what His purpose for Creating us is, and what is our place within His creation.

This is what I have a hard time with. Reconciling a being with the intelligence, capacity, logic and ambition to create the wonders of the Universe, having a vested interest in the petty nature of Satan and Eve and all you describe. Seems incompatible.

The biggest logical fallacy working here is we have the capacity to understand the nature of a being such as this - that would could comprehend him or his priorities on any level whatsoever.

Yet our conception of him is limited by our capacity. We imagine him and his concerns as a reflection of your own struggle to understand and justify existence.

Yet egocentric and as dim as we are, we juxtapose our own self-involvement onto our creation.

Why did the general perception of the Judeo-Christian "God" depict him as male, when gender would be irrelevant. Because we'r limited by our own capacity to imagine outside our circumstances.

We say God created us in his image, and we rationalize this mean God loves us, but what it REALLY means is we imagine god as a ideal reflection of ourselves - that the universe is ALL about US.The a being that can create a sun or a blackhole and create life vastly more complex and intelligent than mankind really, really digs US.

Doesn't that make us special?

The likelihood that god shares our concerns and that we can relate in any way to what his concerns are is logically flawed, and since God would have to the inventor of logic, the two premises are incompatible.

Carl Sagan was right about a microbe on an some ant-hill. That's what we are compared to God, x infinity.

Most people just can't wrap their head around that, or care to.

A scientific mind you respect, Carl Sagan, said this: "Science is not only compatible with spirituality; it is a profound source of spirituality. When we recognize our place in an immensity of light-years and in the passage of ages, when we grasp the intricacy, beauty, and subtlety of life, then that soaring feeling, that sense of elation and humility combined, is surely spiritual."

Spirituality and religion are not synonymous.

[Capn'O]

Neither here nor there: Carl Sagan was high as **** when he said that

[And100]

Is it reasonable to believe He should truly do so? He is the Creator, so he rightfully deserves to be acknowledged, honored, and glorified as such.

And since he created all, he designed it so people would have to glorify him, by rule.

That suggests ego, which is product of pride.

Personally if I, from scratch, made an intelligent life form, or even an AI, not of my exact nature, and it surpassed me in intelligence, wisdom, and power, I think it could likely become presumptuous, gun for my spot and maybe even try to eliminate me or want me to worship it; I personally am not in compliance with such a possibility occurring. That strikes me as being incredibly naive.

The wisdom and intelligence part cancels out the squabbling or fear about maintaining position or deference. That is an expression of frail, human anxiety.

If his creation was wiser and more intelligent than he, would someone as wise as God defer voluntarily?

God is Holy in the absolute degree and is incapable of corruptibility. The creation is not incapable of choosing to sin, they have free will, so if they should CHOOSE to become presumptuous and God actually made them more powerful than Himself,

God should have faith ... in himself.

He sent us Jesus, but then it appears you are arguing Jesus was corruptible.

It's difficult to imagine God being interested in us personally, but when you analyze His activities

There is no "activity" to analyze. Only theory.

One action is He sent His first act of creation, Jesus, into the world in order to reclaim what Adam lost: the prospect of humans having everlasting life on a peaceful earth.

Or that never happened. You don't prove a theory with another theory.

Religion, however, replies on it.

If Loki said that, He was right It's natural for us to want to be lead, we are hardwired that way, and ultimately it's for the benefit and prosperity of the human race.

Not all of us.

That what you say it true is IMO, a vast component of the problem.

[Iron Mantis]

Neither here nor there: Carl Sagan was high as **** when he said that

When most contemplate the vast awesomeness and wonders of the universe with the infinite complexity of the creation within it, they are moved with a need to seek the Creator of it, and find what His purpose for Creating us is, and what is our place within His creation.

This is what I have a hard time with. Reconciling a being with the intelligence, capacity, logic and ambition to create the wonders of the Universe, having a vested interest in the petty nature of Satan and Eve and all you describe. Seems incompatible.

The biggest logical fallacy working here is we have the capacity to understand the nature of a being such as this - that would could comprehend him or his priorities on any level whatsoever.

Yet our conception of him is limited by our capacity. We imagine him and his concerns as a reflection of your own struggle to understand and justify existence.

Yet egocentric and as dim as we are, we juxtapose our own self-involvement onto our creation.

Why did the general perception of the Judeo-Christian "God" depict him as male, when gender would be irrelevant. Because we'r limited by our own capacity to imagine outside our circumstances.

We say God created us in his image, and we rationalize this mean God loves us, but what it REALLY means is we imagine god as a ideal reflection of ourselves - that the universe is ALL about US.The a being that can create a sun or a blackhole and create life vastly more complex and intelligent than mankind really, really digs US.

Doesn't that make us special?

The likelihood that god shares our concerns and that we can relate in any way to what his concerns are is logically flawed, and since God would have to the inventor of logic, the two premises are incompatible.

Carl Sagan was right about a microbe on an some ant-hill. That's what we are compared to God, x infinity.

Most people just can't wrap their head around that, or care to.

A scientific mind you respect, Carl Sagan, said this: "Science is not only compatible with spirituality; it is a profound source of spirituality. When we recognize our place in an immensity of light-years and in the passage of ages, when we grasp the intricacy, beauty, and subtlety of life, then that soaring feeling, that sense of elation and humility combined, is surely spiritual."

Spirituality and religion are not synonymous.

Spiritually is what eventually LEADS people to religion.

Yes we are limited in our ability to fully grasp many things which are currently beyond our comprehension. That is why eternal life will never be boring, we are curious creatures who will keep learning about God and the universe, forever and ever.

It's nice that God puts spiritual matters into human expressions we can relate to. If not it would be like trying to to teach advanced Calculus, in Latin, to an English-speaking kindergartner.

God really digs us. He has proved it by way of his activities and dealings with mankind.