Netphoria Message Board


Go Back   Netphoria Message Board > Archives > General Chat Archive
Register Netphoria's Amazon.com Link Members List Mark Forums Read

 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 06-20-2002, 06:52 AM   #31
Oblivious
 
Posts: n/a
Post

the theory of god is just easier for people to deal with. all the science and fact would just lead to utter confusion if you tried to explain it to the masses.

 
Old 06-20-2002, 06:55 AM   #32
BeautifulLoser
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by Oblivious:
the theory of god is just easier for people to deal with. all the science and fact would just lead to utter confusion if you tried to explain it to the masses.
Science coincides with the Bible, if you look at it a certain way. I'm a very scientific thinking person. Science doesn't discredit God.. if anything, it reenforces the idea. I've thought it over... it's not like I came into Christianity because my parents raised me that way. They were Atheists.

The universe isn't just created out of nothing. Matter can't be created from nothing. And you can use that arguement to discredit God's existance, but I think maybe those rules don't apply in that aspect.

 
Old 06-20-2002, 07:01 AM   #33
Oblivious
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by BeautifulLoser:
Science coincides with the Bible, if you look at it a certain way. I'm a very scientific thinking person. Science doesn't discredit God.. if anything, it reenforces the idea. I've thought it over... it's not like I came into Christianity because my parents raised me that way. They were Atheists.

The universe isn't just created out of nothing. Matter can't be created from nothing. And you can use that arguement to discredit God's existance, but I think maybe those rules don't apply in that aspect.
i'm not saying that our universe was created from nothing. it was obviously started by atmospheric conditions. a plethera of single celled organisms that alone would have been nothing. add in the elements and voila - you have primordial ooze.

 
Old 06-20-2002, 07:04 AM   #34
BeautifulLoser
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by Oblivious:
i'm not saying that our universe was created from nothing. it was obviously started by atmospheric conditions. a plethera of single celled organisms that alone would have been nothing. add in the elements and voila - you have primordial ooze.
But where did the conditions come from?


------------------
I need a new sig.

 
Old 06-20-2002, 07:05 AM   #35
Elvis The Fat Years
 
Posts: n/a
Red face

Quote:
Originally posted by BeautifulLoser:
But where did the conditions come from?


wallmart.

 
Old 06-20-2002, 07:06 AM   #36
BeautifulLoser
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by Elvis The Fat Years:
wallmart.
http://www.netphoria.org/wwwboard/biggrin.gif

 
Old 06-20-2002, 07:13 AM   #37
Oblivious
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by BeautifulLoser:
But where did the conditions come from?


why can they have not always existed? of course i believe that we are such a small part of the universal evolutionary process that we're really quite insignificant. it's only ego and arrogance that lead us to believe that there may be more and that we're part of a greater scheme. there's no reason to believe that the universe wasn't always here and that our galaxy and our solar system and life as we know it isnt't just an evolutionary fluke. a very small facet in the schematics that will eventually go on as though our consiousness never existed.

 
Old 06-20-2002, 07:17 AM   #38
BeautifulLoser
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by Oblivious:
why can they have not always existed? of course i believe that we are such a small part of the universal evolutionary process that we're really quite insignificant. it's only ego and arrogance that lead us to believe that there may be more and that we're part of a greater scheme. there's no reason to believe that the universe wasn't always here and that our galaxy and our solar system and life as we know it isnt't just an evolutionary fluke. a very small facet in the schematics that will eventually go on as though our consiousness never existed.
Ego and Arrogance, eh? No need to be harsh on someone else's beliefs... arguing religion goes nowhere. I'm not going to start quoting the Bible to explain myself, because most people don't think the Bible is a credible document, and no one wants to hear it anyway. But I have my reasons for believing it, you have your reasons for believing what you believe. I just explained my point of view.. and I'll leave it at that.

------------------
I need a new sig.

 
Old 06-20-2002, 07:25 AM   #39
Oblivious
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by BeautifulLoser:
Ego and Arrogance, eh? No need to be harsh on someone else's beliefs... arguing religion goes nowhere. I'm not going to start quoting the Bible to explain myself, because most people don't think the Bible is a credible document, and no one wants to hear it anyway. But I have my reasons for believing it, you have your reasons for believing what you believe. I just explained my point of view.. and I'll leave it at that.

eh. i wasn't meaning to sound harsh. those are just my points of view and i honestly would never want to force my opinions on anyone. normally i would not even discuss my theories on creation because i think that something like that should be very individual and personal. even though i am firm in my beliefs i can respect anyone else with convictions just as strong even if those beliefs are different from my own. to each his own as long as i'm not imposed upon.

 
Old 06-20-2002, 07:36 AM   #40
Irrelevant
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by BeautifulLoser:
because most people don't think the Bible is a credible document
it's not.

 
Old 06-20-2002, 07:45 AM   #41
Dead Frequency
 
Posts: n/a
Arrow

I think that we can not understand our beginning, or our end, it is simply too far beyond our simplistic human grasp. Everyone can argue one way or another, but the truth of the matter is that you can make anyone believe anything if you have enough evidence to support your theories.

It is easier to think that our world, and everything in,on, or around it is all simply chaos at its best, than it is to think about God. Largely because once you get into God, and the belief that he created everything, how could you possibly explain his birth, or his creation? You can't. It is as simple as that. Once you get one impossible problem with no answer fixed, you have to go onto another impossible problem with no answer.

It's an endless cycle as far as I can see.

[This message has been edited by Dead Frequency (edited 06-22-2002).]

 
Old 06-20-2002, 08:56 AM   #42
DeviousJ
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by BeautifulLoser:
Science coincides with the Bible, if you look at it a certain way. I'm a very scientific thinking person.

The universe isn't just created out of nothing. Matter can't be created from nothing.
But it can. Particle-antiparticle pairs played a major part in the birth of the universe, as far as current scientific thinking goes - where two opposite particles (which together, add up to nothing) are able to appear, and eventually group with their own kind to form matter and antimatter. So *that* thread of reasoning doesn't hold up too well at the moment, not that the others are much better. The thing about god is that he's supposed to exist on an entirely different plane, so how can you use limits such as infinity to prove or disprove his existence, when they relate only to our own view of the universe?

That guy seems off course in a few ways - how long ago was that article written?

 
Old 06-20-2002, 09:02 AM   #43
ratinacage
 
Posts: n/a
Post

In my opinion, St. Thomas Aquinas is the greatest philosopher to ever live. I think he gets shortchanged by historians, simply because we've "heard it all before," but no one comes even close to the clarity and brilliance he shows in his arguments. Nietzsche, Kant, and others who for some reason get more credit, don't hold a candle to Aquinas, or Aristotle for that matter.

 
Old 06-20-2002, 09:23 AM   #44
mpp
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by Irrelevant:


simpler and more reasonable than assuming
trying to "prove" god thru reason is pointless

god is almost totally unreasonable; i mean, seriously, how can something that complex exist infinitely?

without god, man is wretched; with god, true, actual bliss is possible

"The heart has its reasons which reason knows nothing of." --pascal


 
Old 06-20-2002, 09:27 AM   #45
Lie
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by ratinacage:
In my opinion, St. Thomas Aquinas is the greatest philosopher to ever live. I think he gets shortchanged by historians, simply because we've "heard it all before," but no one comes even close to the clarity and brilliance he shows in his arguments. Nietzsche, Kant, and others who for some reason get more credit, don't hold a candle to Aquinas, or Aristotle for that matter.
Aristotle sucks even worse. Who wants to read that drivel? If any of the above philosophers are the greatest to have ever lived, it's Kant.

 
Old 06-20-2002, 10:12 AM   #46
ratinacage
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by mpp:
trying to "prove" god thru reason is pointless

god is almost totally unreasonable; i mean, seriously, how can something that complex exist infinitely?

I disagree. As humans, we cannot completely understand God Himself since He is so far above us; however, we can still comprehend the concept of God, i.e. that He exists, and we can discover things about His nature, i.e. He is omnipotent and omniscient, He can neither deceive nor be deceived. To me, the first argument for the existence of God (Original Mover argument) is the clincher.

 
Old 06-20-2002, 10:33 AM   #47
DeviousJ
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by ratinacage:
I disagree. As humans, we cannot completely understand God Himself since He is so far above us; however, we can still comprehend the concept of God, i.e. that He exists, and we can discover things about His nature, i.e. He is omnipotent and omniscient, He can neither deceive nor be deceived. To me, the first argument for the existence of God (Original Mover argument) is the clincher.
No - we can comprehend the concept of a god, we just can't prove that the concept is actually truth. The first argument is flawed, in that science has widely accepted theories as to the development of the universe from a static startpoint. How everything got there in the first place... is the question. But as a simple example, put two magnets close to each other, at opposite poles. Now let them go. Did they move? Has God intervened? These kind of interactions, where two potential energies become simultaneously kinetic, are very common in quantum physics

 
Old 06-20-2002, 10:40 AM   #48
ratinacage
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by DeviousJ:
The first argument is flawed, in that science has widely accepted theories as to the development of the universe from a static startpoint. How everything got there in the first place... is the question.
I don't see your point. I think the scientific theories you mentioned (I assume you're referring to Big Bang etc) are a compelling argument in favor of the existence of God. A tightly wound mass of matter is compressed in one place, then explodes to form the universe. God put the material there, and formed it and the natural laws governing it so that it would create the universe as we know it. How is any of this an argument against theistic creation?

 
Old 06-20-2002, 10:55 AM   #49
scouse_dave
 
Posts: n/a
Talking

Quote:
Originally posted by Lie:
Aristotle sucks even worse. Who wants to read that drivel? If any of the above philosophers are the greatest to have ever lived, it's Kant.
*sings*

oh, emmanuel kant was a real pissant, and was very rarely stable!!


 
Old 06-20-2002, 10:56 AM   #50
scouse_dave
 
Posts: n/a
Talking

Quote:
Originally posted by ratinacage:
God put the material there, and formed it and the natural laws governing it so that it would create the universe as we know it
let me guess: you're a retard right?

 
Old 06-20-2002, 12:51 PM   #51
polecat jericho
 
Posts: n/a
Talking

Ohnos, it's the angry Atheist Post!

 
Old 06-20-2002, 12:57 PM   #52
Brazil.Virex
 
Posts: n/a
Post

if there is a god
i know he likes to rock

 
Old 06-20-2002, 01:00 PM   #53
jukeboxphuckup
 
Posts: n/a
Post

That's so weird. My philosophy exam today had "Does God Exist?" as the essay question, and I was was supposed to prove it using St. Thomas of Aquinas's five proofs.

 
Old 06-20-2002, 02:27 PM   #54
Nate the Grate
 
Posts: n/a
Post

the funny thing is, throughout history, religion has been a major binding force. without a belief in God, we probably wouldn't be here right now.

 
Old 06-20-2002, 02:29 PM   #55
NinjaTurtle
 
Posts: n/a
Post

meatless hamburgers proves the existence of god.

------------------
'~..~CloSe this wOrld ~ tXen eht nEpO~..~'

 
Old 06-20-2002, 02:44 PM   #56
kypper
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by DeviousJ:
But it can. Particle-antiparticle pairs played a major part in the birth of the universe, as far as current scientific thinking goes - where two opposite particles (which together, add up to nothing) are able to appear, and eventually group with their own kind to form matter and antimatter. So *that* thread of reasoning doesn't hold up too well at the moment, not that the others are much better. The thing about god is that he's supposed to exist on an entirely different plane, so how can you use limits such as infinity to prove or disprove his existence, when they relate only to our own view of the universe?

That guy seems off course in a few ways - how long ago was that article written?
Well, really what's kind of interesting is that everybody seems to be seeing God as the beginning of the universe and the way it has gone, but if you read Stephen Hawking's work, he talks about how, because of imaginary time, there IS no beginning or end of that sort.

 
Old 06-20-2002, 02:45 PM   #57
kypper
 
Posts: n/a
Thumbs down

Quote:
Originally posted by mpp:
trying to "prove" god thru reason is pointless

god is almost totally unreasonable; i mean, seriously, how can something that complex exist infinitely?

without god, man is wretched; with god, true, actual bliss is possible

"The heart has its reasons which reason knows nothing of." --pascal


I detest Pascal and his Wager.

 
Old 06-20-2002, 02:48 PM   #58
kypper
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by scouse_dave:
let me guess: you're a retard right?
He just hasn't read any Hawking or Feynman. We need more physicists in here. http://www.netphoria.org/wwwboard/tongue.gif

"There's nothing Nietzsche couldn't teach ya 'bout the raising of the wrist... Socrates himself was permanently piiiiiiiiiiiiisssssssed."

 
Old 06-20-2002, 03:05 PM   #59
Irrelevant
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by ratinacage:
I don't see your point. I think the scientific theories you mentioned (I assume you're referring to Big Bang etc) are a compelling argument in favor of the existence of God. A tightly wound mass of matter is compressed in one place, then explodes to form the universe. God put the material there, and formed it and the natural laws governing it so that it would create the universe as we know it. How is any of this an argument against theistic creation?
and who put god there and decided the natural laws by which he is governed? adding god into the equation of the creation of the universe does not solve anything, and is a baseless addition at that.

 
Old 06-20-2002, 03:17 PM   #60
ratinacage
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by Irrelevant:
and who put god there and decided the natural laws by which he is governed? adding god into the equation of the creation of the universe does not solve anything, and is a baseless addition at that.
God transcends natural laws since He wrote them. He is the Author of the universe, the First Mover. As per proof 1, since every thing currently in existence must derive its source from another thing preceding, then there must ultimately be an original catalyst, which we call God. Another alternative, as has been discussed, is the the universe simply always was, that it existed independently of an original mover. To me, however, this simply sidesteps the issue without providing a solution. Nothing in our universe can simply be, this idea contradicts all the laws of nature; it must be set in motion by some force.

 
 


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is On
Google


Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:56 PM.




Smashing Pumpkins, Alternative Music
& General Discussion Message Board and Forums
www.netphoria.org - Copyright © 1998-2022