unseen1 wrote:Semper wrote:Well.. that's merely an issue of each to their own isn't it? I do know some people who believe that it may indeed change. In some cases I would like to think it does.. but then I am split between what I know empirically and what I hope. Of course although I know much of science, theology and philosophy I still like to see some romance left in the meanings of the world. For many it's long since become numbers, graphs and journal articles but I can imagine very few worse existences.
I was just pointing out how anything is possible by your standards.Think of the most bizarre thing you think it is impossible but yet there is always a chance that it is true.
I am good with that. It keeps things interesting!
unseen wrote:Semper wrote:Someone invented a God 2000 years ago? lol..
Dont mock me.God you and me and all western world is talking about is even younger around 1500 years old.Our perception of it is unchanged from middle age till today.Well with slight modifications to him as now he is more of a "personal god" then anything else.Everyone seems to suit him to their needs.
Yes because ultimately it's about personal belief and that belief will change from person to person and as they grow or evolve the belief will change with their understanding of the world. Same thing as people loving and liking a sport or a film. The thing itself does not change.. merely peoples perceptions of it and beyond.
unseen wrote:Semper wrote:If God should exist.. then it is merely human understanding of that being that has changed. As far as we can look back humanity has believed in a higher power.
Thats one way of putting it.Another way is that slowly "GOD" is running out of options.So as knowledge grows so does "GODS" powers,immunity,untouchability.There was a time when Conan could beat the crap out of "GODS".Today we cant even imagine how and what he is.Funny,isnt it?
God's in fantasy still exist and beyond.
As for running out of options... that's like taking away HP's credibility for making my laptop because I have since learned they're not actually directly responsible for everything that goes on within it. The computer industry as a whole, as an entity, still made my laptop and put it together
No one can imagine how and what God is... because the universal truth that we don't understand it's nature is finally being accepted. On top of that... a lot of people refuse to be open to the idea because to do so would mean that there is not an answer for everything, which to me is another universal truth... science and man cannot find an empirical answer for everything and the day as a race we accept that will be a step in the right direction..we're part way there, but not entirely yet.
But again though.. I just say it's simply just adaptation of understanding. Believe me when I say this happens a lot of the time.. things change, they become very simple and then evolve again (points out Psychology's transitions through behaviourism to what it is now in concerns with human processes).
unseen wrote:Semper wrote:It's the same conclusions with intelligent design. We see humans create sophisticated systems, we see as we learn more and become more intelligent the systems become more sophisticated, fundamental and complex. Now we explore and see the universe and see the same complexity and detail of systems. You see the connection?
It just depends whether you're going to make the age old mistake of making belief in a higher power or intelligent designer an exclusive feature of religion or allow lee way for other interpretations of that belief external to religion, but one that embraces aspects of science and religion.
No we just progressed in our knowledge to this level of sophistication.That doesnt mean that everything is engineered.
Im guessing when Da Vinci counted how many ribs we have people thought the same thing
.
It does not mean that no.. which is why we have the doubt in intelligent design, however it's still the most logical conclusion. If you start to doubt things like that then to me it throws doubt on all science..because that's the whole process of science. You find a pattern, identify how it works and what it means and draw a conclusion.
We've seen the pattern.. sophisticated creates making advance technology (there is a direct correlation between intelligence and advancement) and we see this pattern of advancement in the universe so apply the same pattern to it.
A great example of it in science today is animal testing opposed to human testing. We use animals first and then humans.
unseen wrote:Semper wrote:What I am pointing out to you is that the proof for evolution is found in the bones and their assigned dates. We see the bones change, so we conclude that we've grown and adapted randomly in our environments.
Semper wrote:It won't be accepted because it requires sacrifices of power on the behalf of science.
No it wont be accepted because it needs proof, any kind of proof.Its just not good enough If you say that there is a chance.
You know how we concluded evolution theory and from the same reason we cant conclude intelligent design.
We cant say,well here is the deal,evidence shows to this side but there is always a chance for this side so,yeah,this is another valid theory.Maybe for theory on SGW forum but that is as far as it goes.
Which is why creationism remains in religious studies.. and intelligence design is only presented as a theory.
I never said it was anything more than a theory or logical conclusion. The Big bang itself is still only referred to as a theory, albeit one with a lot of support, but none the less a theory.
unseen wrote:Semper wrote:The theory of what began the big bang is likely to never, ever be finalised so with that in mind as a scientist would you prefer to be the 'highest' intelligence on offer to your species, or would you prefer them to hold out hope in another being? From a selfish perspective i'd definitely say the former. Can't have people ultimately accrediting my work to some other being.. it's mine I tell you! Love ME for it!
But then again what if they prove it?"GOD" gets another dress I presume?
From me, no...as I will maintain what I have said..that it's the most likely conclusion an intelligent designer is responsible for the universe. The Big bang is just a theorised point of reference because we have no point before it.
unseen wrote:Semper wrote:Intelligent design was not invented just to put religion back in the schools lol. It's in the same process as any other scientific theory. It's being developed and evolved to accept what we're happy in accepting as truth from empirical sources. It's a logical advancement. We know how a lot of things work and they don't require direct interaction of 'God' which actually answers one of the problems of belief in classical God..(a being of that level directly interacting to change things.. it's impossible to our knowledge) because it now shows that God does not necessarily need to directly interact but our understanding of energy and computer science allows room to postulate the idea that a God - creator may still be responsible and it's a fairly logical conclusion that does not hamper, but support science.
This is how intelligent design is being developed:
And this man will tell you what exactly intelligent design is:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDSBFQBrLIIAnything else your talking about isnt creationism or intelligent design.It is just you allowing the possibility that someone created everything.I never throw that possibility away.It would be foolish to do so but It is also foolish to call creator "GOD".
Why is it foolish to call a creator God? It's easier to say, gives some people some hope that I believe they DO deserve... it's foolish to rely entirely on empirical evidence to draw ones conclusions as it relies heavily on the same sort of arrogance that gave us the idea we were the centre of the universe.
I have my own theory of ID..there is nothing wrong with that...there are often more than one version of a theory. I don't think you understand science if you compare their development like that. I study psychology and I assure you a lot of the older theories have been changed in the face of the newer ones, generally to fit with them.
That cartoon is funny though.
unseen wrote:Semper wrote:Jolly good! Unfortunately though a lot of scientist's are unwise fools. They advance with the heart and soul of humanity in hand but approach any socially or personally fundamental issue with as much care as a bull in a china shop inevitably and blindly working to crush the once blossoming flower of man in the name of truths not everyone wants to, or should know but ones that are dogmatically enforced on people who don't need to know the terrible theories that may prove true, ultimately no better than the catholic church that purgated it all those years ago.
Am I angry that Science is conspiring to rob me of a soul and Free will? Of a greater meaning in my life forcing me into an endless cycle of depression?
Why are you angry at scientist?Shouldnt you be angry at religion for giving you a false way out?For lying to you?Making your hopes go up,just to be shattered by science?
And dont go to science for searching meaning of life.Science doesnt do that.Monthy python maybe not science mate.
Again I say, science cant show you the road but it can show you how that road is made.
And If science find some ugliness,what are we supposed to do?Bury our heads into the ground like ostrich?
That's why I am angry at scienstis's. You nailed it in your first sentence.. not by what you said, but how you said it. The arrogance is magnificent..you even skipped over most of what I wrote just to pick on religion.. when the answer you want you'd already been given.
It's there.. re-read it and the bit below.
unseen wrote:Semper wrote:Definitely so, however that does not make my statement wrong, it merely proves it. I would have to ask them though, in the face of their own conclusions how many have ever pushed aside this burning hatred of all things metaphysical and fully comprehended the theories they advocate? How many have sat down and realised that should they be proven right anything they ever prove or discover will be only given meaning by selfish perceptions but at the conclusion of time their empirical truths will have no more meaning than another man's God, perhaps even less. If I am still around then I will enjoy the day science takes a moment to catch it's breath and comprehend the destruction it's thirst has wraught on humanity's soul, for what to them is the measure of being a man but to simply do and die.
Its not that dark mate.What did the Theory of Gravitation do to man soul I wonder?
Obviously there are some parts that are good.. but I decided in the same way all aspects of religion are rounded up for execution I would do the same to science. My point still stands though.
unseen wrote:Semper wrote:The father of American Psychology William James said in order to disprove the law that all Blackbirds are Black one simply needs to identify a White Blackbird. I deeply enjoy this as it's such a devils advocate thing to say.
But white is yet to be identified.
Nope the white has been identified in a lot of theories. I don't mean science as a whole.. lol.. I don't seek to destroy humans ability to advance in their understanding.. but as always it's the way in which it's done.
unseen wrote:Semper wrote:It's the old benefit cost issue. If they worship they gain favour. Favour fits into the system of beliefs because it further insures entrance into heaven and eternal bliss, whilst taking a small amount of time out (for most people anyway, others do a lot more) to thank this great being for creating them.
Mostly fear of dying,fear of unknown.Hence my question about that voice in the sky.How many people you think would go slain themselves without some empirical evidence?
Until yesterday they believed in him unconditionally without any evidence.But when they are asked to make a great sacrifice 99% of them would become greatest empirical thinkers of all time
.
Fear of death and dying is not by any means the most of it. A lot of people don't face that fear because the belief is already there.
I think with all the technology we have and a lot of humans desires to trick and deceive.. you're example is not as clear cut as you think. A lot of people would be fearful that it wasn't God and just a practical joke. It's not about not having faith in this example or about how far people were willing to go.. it would be about the same thing it's always been about. Man.
unseen wrote:Semper wrote:At the same time, not everyone has studied Philosophy, not everyone has such faith in empirical truths and even then there is still no definitive set or collection of theories to disprove the existence of even that defined God, only the acts humans claim it has performed.
Well people believe in some "GOD" and If your "GOD" is something more then youcantcomprehendevensingleshrredofdeityhimbeingohgretaest then he usually has some virtues.And those virtues are usually disproved.
Disproved? Disproved? What a MASSIVE statement... no one has disproved the existence of God..no one has disproved the existence of any ideas of this God. That's such a stupid thing to say...
I don't believe myself.. but at the same time I know it's not been disproved.. people just don't believe it exist's because there is no direct empirical proof. There is a difference between disproving and suitable proof for everyone. Evolution has proof of it's existence, but not everyone accepts it on every level.
Bi-HIG.. mistake..
I tell you what.. you disprove to me every virtue of every god that's ever existed and we'll see how many you disprove. Or you can withdraw that statement now and apologise to intelligence everywhere..
unseen wrote:Semper wrote:Indoctrination is the way of humanity. Last millennia's religion is this ones science. Praying in wooden buildings before a cross or theorised metaphysical being has been replaced with equally fake values and sitting around in labs or the wilderness whispering to a test tube or numbers.
It is the way of our species to want to know and to have hope, even if that path leads to our destruction.
Science produced something,religion nothing.If this is what you think then its better we return to caves and start making eternal flame again.
Again.. what a stupid statement. Do you know how many law systems in the world originate from the 10 commandments? The Renaissance.. most of european history... a huge chunk of what has made the world go round for the past 6,000 years has been massively influenced if not controlled by religion.
Religion has given meaning to billions upon billions of peoples lives over the existence of our race. It provides hope and discipline too. It may or may not be founded upon a fake idea.. but that does not retract from it's great success in a lot of areas... and believe me if I had to choose between living a religious existence and a scientific one I would take religion any day.
To say religion has produced nothing with any confidence.. good grief.
and before you dare and go try hide behind the "look at what bad it's done".. well.. let's have a look at what science has given us shall we? The gun, the nuke, the car...it goes on. We know religion is not perfect...but your last statement.. what a wowzer...
Unseen wrote:I ask one more question?
If tomorrow there would be heard a loud voice from the sky,telling you to go kill yourself because he is your "GOD" would you do it?
Or would you then go searching for evidence if that truly is your "GOD" or not?
Semper wrote:I'd ignore it and do what I do now...let everyone else do the exploration whilst I enjoy myself.
Well question was more hypothetical and was aimed at other people but you know that
[/quote]
Fair enough...
Kit-Fox wrote:It seems to me that people are unwilling to let go of creationism or ID becuase they like the idea that a 'creator' exists.
I would ask you... what's wrong with that? At the same time though.. I am waiting for to produce evidence to counter my logic that the universe could not have been created by an intelligent designer.
Kit-Fox wrote:And the by existing this 'creator' gives their lives meaning, ie they are part of something greater than just themselves that will not only validate their lives but provide them with rewards at the end of life.
Again... what's wrong with that? Some people need it...and I say to you there's no harm in that.
Kit-Fox wrote:Surely (and i'm open to being corrected here) it would be a better idea for those who want their lives to have meanings and who want to be part of something greater/bigger etc than themselves to try and create such a thing while they are alive that everyone can benefit from?? (and dont say yes but we did, we created churchs, as not everyone can benefit from those, only those who believe in religion can benefit from them. how about solving world hunger or creating world peace etc etc)
I point you to what I told Unseen a bit further up this post. On top of that.... some people see further than what you've asked. They see that.. (putting inevitability and possibility aside) our species, our universe may one day end. When it does everything we have accomplished will all be for naught..because at the moment, by science..it's very likely there will be nothing and no one left to benefit from it and that leaves the only true meaning for life as a selfish one and some people don't want to be selfish because that will lead to the ruination of all.. and... in a science dominated world, it will be the only out come... and that, as arrogant as it may sound.. is something I am 100% certain of.
For Rome!
