Real World Event Discussions

There is a God, or There is no god the next generation

POSTED BY: citizen
UPDATED: Friday, August 25, 2006 02:57
VIEWED: 14701
PAGE 10 of 11

DREAMTROVE

Monday, August 21, 2006 12:35 PM

Antimason,

I hate to be the one to break this to you but Reaverman is right.

It's not that we're programmed to believe in evolution, it's that we are dealing with about 400,000 times the amount of evidence as your sources are. You are the guy in the cave on this issue, staring at the shadows moving on the wall and coming up with theories about world. We're the guys outside who can see the world pretty much as it is.

It's like trying to argue with someone who believes that "Satisfaction" was first recorded by Britney Spears. You just don't know where to begin.

It's even worse than it seems. Not only is creationist intelligent design flat out wrong, it's missing the whole point of how logic works. Evolution is far greater than a basic principle of biology, it is one of the ruling laws of the universe, up with relativity and chaos theory. Without evolution, it is impossible to explain the existance of matter, or for that matter energy. Science fiction like firefly could certainly not exist without it.

Here's my advice to you:

'Vex not thy spirit at the course of things; They heed not thy vexation. How ludicrous and outlandish is astonishment at anything that may happen in life.' - Marcus Aurelius

ie. "don't blame the world for not fitting your theory, change your theory to fit the world."

Evolution is a wonderful topic full of fascinating discoveries. (of God's work, if you will)

I'm not even going to argue the point. If you care about the truth, heed the loudly ringing alarm and wake up on this one - it's not a leftist secular plot or a threat to your faith. It's just the way things are.

Sgt. X,

I concur.

CANTTAKESKY

Monday, August 21, 2006 1:55 PM

HK,

I am intrigued by your position on the crop circle business. My current position is that many of them have been proven to be manmade, so it isn't a stretch to imagine that they are ALL manmade--just haven't caught the perps yet. As far as "unexplainable" features like having it made in minutes and without breaking the stalks, I think those questions do not necessarily exclude manmade explanations. Edward Leedskalin moved an entire castle made out of tons of coral rock in a single night, on a pickup truck. There are people out there who know these secrets--it is conceivable that someone with such knowledge made some of these more advanced circles.

However, that doesn't mean I can't be wrong. Do you have any favorite websites that provide support for paranormal explanations. I'd like to read up and see what the other side says. Thanks.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

ANTIMASON

Monday, August 21, 2006 6:02 PM

im not denying there is a role that evolution plays in the universe..i simply do not believe it is the only force at work. science may theorize the laws of the universe, but what mechanism establishes those laws to begin with? i dont believe it all just happens randomly..i believe an omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient entity (God) did it

the fact is, no one here knows what lies beyond death..but almost all of our ancestors believed in an afterlife, so who can dismiss the concept outright? would that not seem to explain apparitions and other paranormal activities?

i believe just as the Bible claims, that Man is in a mortal, physical dimension, our fallen nature.. that it is only a stepping stone to eternity; i believe our soul carries on after our earthly physical body dies. when Jesus returns, at the end of the age, our redemption will transform our mortal bodies to immortal, to return us to our pre-fall state, and to finally transition to a higher phase of consciousness.

im not sure anyone can disprove that it is atleast a possibility, so why deny everything that supports such a theory, such as Jesus' resurrection? if Jesus' stories were inaccurate, there would have been a whole region with conflicting stories, and people close enough to the events to dispute the claims; but instead people died for their witness and testimony.

SERGEANTX

Monday, August 21, 2006 8:20 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:
im not sure anyone can disprove that it is atleast a possibility, so why deny everything that supports such a theory, such as Jesus' resurrection?

I'll not get into why the "you can't prove it isn't true" argument is so flawed. It's very popular regardless. But tell me, by this logic why deny anything? Shouldn't you give equal consideration of every single story someone claims is true?

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

ANTIMASON

Monday, August 21, 2006 8:35 PM

the problem is that you are dismissing everything we know about Jesus' as a historical person. no one here has any problem excepting biographical history about anyone else from that period, such as the Roman rulers and Greek philosophers, with far less scrutiny; but Jesus accounts are written-off immediately. what seperated Jesus from any other crazy person in the world, if he wasnt actually doing something? i think its denegrating to say that all the people who witnesses his miracles, and his ressurection, are considered what..lyers? hillucinating? even extra-biblical, non-biased accounts confirm the events which took place.

basically what your saying is that the Bible is just a book; and i think that is an insult to people who are theologians and scholars, that have spent their lives investigating the merits and evidence for our belief, for someone to just dismiss everything, as if they themselves are all knowing. i atleast acknowledge the role evolution plays

CITIZEN

Monday, August 21, 2006 9:27 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:
basically what your saying is that the Bible is just a book; and i think that is an insult to people who are theologians and scholars, that have spent their lives investigating the merits and evidence for our belief, for someone to just dismiss everything, as if they themselves are all knowing. i atleast acknowledge the role evolution plays

Like the insult against those of other beliefs that don't recognise Jesus as the son of god you mean.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

ANTIMASON

Tuesday, August 22, 2006 1:38 AM

look im tired of beating a dead horse about this Jesus' issue...but heres the thing Citizen-christians have no religion if Jesus' wasnt ressurected from the dead; our faith is based off the concept that life on earth is our souls existence in the mortal, 3rd, physical dimension. Jesus' ressurection was his way of showing his followers that death is not the end. to deny Jesus' deity is to deny the foundation of christianity

think about this, if Jesus' never once performed a healing, a miracle, never defied nature or created something from nothing..he wouldnt have created a following at all. but his word had truth, and his his actions were perceived as divine, and people sacrificed their lives for the testimony of what they saw. would anyone here die for Jesus, given what they know? what seperates us from them is that they saw Jesus'divinity with their own eyes

Jesus' death was well known when it happened, being documented by numerous sources, so why wasnt Jesus' seen 3 days later, badly beaten and barely alive, if that is what happened? if this had been the case, no one would have believed his claims that he was God manifest! but he was seen fully restored, witnessed by a many people, including Paul, who persecuted him until he saw Jesus' restored anew

isnt this is a problem for the skeptics? they cant deny his existence, death or his body being placed under guard, since they are all events recorded extra-biblicly; so what is the explanation for his being witnessed by so many, including his followers, fully healed, just days later? he created such a following that the Romans tryed to exterminate all christian presence...why did these people die for something non-existant? why did the Romans retaliate so excessively for something that was a made up story? if it was all a myth, surely someone would have spoke up before they were persecuted relentlessly

ive heard the alternative explanations, and they have just as many holes as the official 9/11 story; all i ask is that you consider the possibility..you dont have to make up your mind, just dont write off the possibility

HKCAVALIER

Tuesday, August 22, 2006 7:07 AM

Hey Sergeant, Hey CantTakeSky,

My mentioning crop circles took even me by surprise actually. I'm not "into" crop circles by any means, most of the time I take them pretty much for granted (yeah). But the conversation about god and belief and awarenesses beside the human all met in my experience of and research into crop circles. Also, about a week ago a friend shared some footage of some of them with me so the phenom was fresh in my mind.

As soon as I posted my first post about them (way up there in the thread somewhere), it hit me what kinda a flack I might be in for, so I checked out what wikipedia had to say on the subject. I was really surprised and disappointed to find what amounted to a full page ad for www.circlemakers.org (not the first time wikipedia's knowledge on something I've actually studied was kinda lacking).

The whole circlemakers thing is really part of a much bigger problem with human cognition that I'm seeing more and more of these days, a particularly American relationship to "the possible." Let me explain.

Many American lovers of capitalism point to the "self-made" million- and billionaires to prove the system's validity. The presupposition goes that if one human can do it under capitalism, all humans can do it under capitalism.

But this is not a logical or even realistic conclusion. Who knows what factors went into making Bill Gates rich? Personality, upbringing, socio-political factors of his times, unaccountable luck, unrepeatable personal genius, all of these largely unknowable factors contributed to the unique circumstances of his rise to wealth and power. But it's no fun to be told that the most important events of your life are often entirely out of your control, so we ignore all that and say, "Well...it's possible!"

Or take the old American fantasy, "Anyone can become President." It's simply not true.

So we want something to be true. We find an example, however freakish. And from that we abstract a hopeful truism. "Boy rises from nothing to become President of General Motors." So what? What does that mean for any particular individual? Nothing. It's just part of our American mythology.

Or the threat of terrorism. A particular terrorist plot had utterly unprecedented success in 2001. Therefore, it could happen again any minute of any day from now on. Nonsense. A ton of unrepeatable circumstances, blunders and far-reaching mischance contributed to the tragedy. But it's possible. It's also possible that no single terrorist attack will ever achieve that level of destruction again.

So circlemakers construct a fake crop circle. Well, there it is! Somebody made a crop circle, therefore, all 10,000+ crop circles made over the past 30 years could be faked.

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
My current position is that many of them have been proven to be manmade, so it isn't a stretch to imagine that they are ALL manmade--just haven't caught the perps yet.

Hey CTS, don't mean to pick on you, but this quote serves my point. It's all too easy for people to go from "plausible" to "probable" without even noticing. All too often the next step is "case closed." "Plausible," what seems reasonable, is nothing but prejudice. Any time we start with "plausible" we remove a thousand possibilities.

When there's something we'd like to believe, all we really need to establish is its plausibility. Just look at the WTC attack. Is it plausible that the towers fell as a result of the airplanes alone? Well, yes. Okay, fine, well, glad that's settled.

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
As far as "unexplainable" features like having it made in minutes and without breaking the stalks, I think those questions do not necessarily exclude manmade explanations. Edward Leedskalin moved an entire castle made out of tons of coral rock in a single night, on a pickup truck. There are people out there who know these secrets--it is conceivable that someone with such knowledge made some of these more advanced

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME

CITIZEN

Tuesday, August 22, 2006 12:45 PM

I understand without Jesus' divinity there is no Christianity; I really get it, despite not being Christian. Why do you find it so hard to understand that too people who are not Christian the bible IS just a book.

If you want to take that as an insult, go ahead because by the same logic your belief in Jesus is an insult to every non Christian religion and every scholar and theologian that studies them.

And what's this nonsense about it being impossible for Jesus to create a following without miracles? If that's the case how do you explain followers of all the other religions?

I'm not dismissing anything, I'm merely pointing out that to any non-Christian the Bible IS just a book, and that is not an insult.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

CANTTAKESKY

Tuesday, August 22, 2006 4:15 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
It's all too easy for people to go from "plausible" to "probable" without even noticing. All too often the next step is "case closed." "Plausible," what seems reasonable, is nothing but prejudice.

This is a good point. However, with crop circles, the mystery is so extensive (in my view) that all explanations I have heard seem to involve more or less the same amount of improbability. Then one ranks those explanations according to one's own values and biases, and end up with the preferred explanation.

Quote:
Any time we start with "plausible" we remove a thousand possibilities.

I don't think so. I mean, we have to narrow the infinite possibilities down sometime. Left with the remaining plausible alternatives, one doesn't necessarily become close-minded and dogmatic all of a sudden. It just means these are deemed to be more probable than others. It's a continuum, with more probable on one end, and less probable on the other. Somewhere on that continuum, we draw an arbitrary line and say everything on this side is plausible. The ranking on this continuum is heavily influenced by personal preferences and experiences.

I think what you are talking about is narrow mindedness and dogmatism. Some people are simply dogmatic. They draw the plausible line to allow for only one explanation, and that is the only answer they will entertain. There are people who are not aware of their own value system, biases, and assumptions behind their reasoning. They don't understand how if one of those premises is flawed, their whole reasoning is flawed. They don't understand how they could ever be wrong. (But I'm not one of THOSE people.

)

Now let's talk about crop circles to illustrate. Here is my reasoning.

Crop circles are made by either someone (intelligent life form) or "nature." Nature has a history of being sorta random, which is inconsistent with the intricate designs of the circles. It doesn't fit her MO, so I put nature to the other side of the plausible line. (This reflects a personal bias and assumption I have that intricacy and order reflects intelligence and consciousness. It also assumes that nature is not intelligent and conscious. If my assumption is wrong, then obviously my evaluation would be wrong).

So in my view, someone made the formations. That someone could be from earth or not from earth. Of all the intelligent beings on earth, I've ruled out dolphins and other animals (again inconsistent with MO). That leaves me with homo sapiens or ET life forms. Both of these are on the only explanations left on my plausible side. Now, we have a lot of educated speculation and testimony about ET, but nothing empirical and replicable. So my personal scientific preferences put homo sapiens as a more probable explanation than ET.

Homo sapiens has made designs like this before, just in other media--so this is not inconsistent with man's MO. The mystery for me is not so much in WHO, but in HOW this was accomplished. There have been other "HOW" mysteries where construction has been assumed to be manmade--the pyramids, Leedskalin's coral castle, Incan Machu Picchu, etc. So I throw crop circles in as another one.

In my continuum, all the other possibilities still exist. I just prefer to focus on solving the one on my "most probable" end. It may be that new information will turn up and I will revisit other "less probable" explanations. My ranking doesn't mean I am right and others are wrong--it is just the one that makes the most sense to me.

To answer HOW, I form a new continuum. Could be footprints of someone who is doing hyperdimensional travel, could be some eccentric who has discovered the secrets of antigravity, could be pranksters with boards, could be government secret weapons, could be a group of bored psychics who can bend corn as well as spoons. I don't know. But this is where I am concentrating my efforts--on the manmade explanation. As I get more info, I will again sort the plausible from the implausible