Preserved Topic: Peanut Gallery for "Does God Exist?" III (Page 2 of 3)

bodhi23: I believe you are refering to Bishop Usher who worked out that a strit interpretation of the bible would make the world something like 4000 years old.

There are probably other precendents for monotheism but we are getting back to the limits of recorded history. Things are still controversial in relation to Akhenaten and the Atun (sp?) but it is possible that this heretical move away from the pantheon of Egytptian gods could have inspired Moses.

Thanks for the filling in of the details . In some ways it may have been a 'need' for a more popular brand of monotheism that forced the emergence of the early church. Constantine's edict of Milan in 313AD (where he outlawed persecution of monotheism) really set the stage for the Council of Nicaea in 325AD where he effectively created the modern version of Christianity. Although he was only baptised on his deathbed and the empire's religion remained pagan sun worship (Sol Invictus) with the Emperor as high priest the reason we have Sunday as our day of worship and not the Sabbath, why we celebrate Christmas on the day of Natalis Invictus - the rebirth of the sun and not Jesus' birthday and the origin of the halo.

Mithras (the decsendant of Zoatrianism) is also mixed in with this (and has its holy day on Sunday and celebrates 25th December and is often mistaken for Sol Invictus). Mithrasism contained elements like an immortal soul, some kind of judgement day and the resurrection of the dead.

In some ways Constantine wove all these elements together to form the form of Chritianity we know (a misxture of pagan beliefs and Judaism).

[edit I had a little nose around and came up with this:
www.sabbatarian.com/photos.html - annoying music and I wonder about their biases - see also their page: www.sabbatarian.com/Constantine.html - now I didn't know that about the 12 days of Xmas (the formatting of that text is appaling)
http://web.infoave.net/~toolong/solinvictus.html
www.thegreatestpuzzle.com/325j1.htm - good stuff here
www.mystae.com/restricted/reflections/messiah/pagan.html
www.geocities.com/spenta_mainyu_2/mithras.htm - scroll down to Mithraism& Christiantiy

anyway thats enough to be going on with]

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

Hehe...thanks, Emps for the links...interesting stuff, indeed! I think I hear raving and ranting coming down the hall...from a foam-flecked mouth...wonder who that could be...'The Holy Bible is God's word, and isn't for the likes of you! Oh, ignorants! Ye shall burneth in Hell!'

I'll be back 1 week from today, I will be away from any PC for a full 6 1/2 days. Good luck WS.


___________________
tri-eye

Whoa, whoa, there's just way too much intelligence going on here for a peanut gallery.

Now where did I put those empty shells...

random observations on recent comments in this thread...

creationism - most of the comments seem to stem from a VERY fundamentalist viewpoint here. what if we looked at it from the viewpoint of the biblical creation of man (Adam) being the creation of man with a soul and not necessarily the first humanlike creature? (and yes, there is scriptural evidence to support this)

constantine - bodhi and emp make some great points, my one comment would be that his "faith" is highly debatable, his actions (tho they certainly did serve to assemble Christianity as we know it) could very well have been rather politcally motivated. and he and a council assembled the bible into more or less what we know today in around 330 AD (to answer an earlier question).

counterfeitbacon - darn good question

evolution question - how does evolution account for completely different species appearing spontaneously in the fossil record?

good discussion folks...

chris


KAIROSinteractive

Uhhh...I think this

quote:

---

evolution question - how does evolution account for completely different species appearing spontaneously in the fossil record?

---

needs to be expanded on...why should that be unusual? A quicker change in the environmental conditions, for example, could cause abrupt evolution in many species at once...(note that 'abrupt' doesn't mean instant here...). Examples of this are the beginning and end of Ice ages...

One must keep in mind, that Evolution itself is a fact, it's just the theory of how it works that is debated...

And in response to the 'First Human with a soul' thing...are you then suggesting that the Aboriginals (and native americans) don't have souls? Ludicrous...absolute humbug. That was the original reason to wipe them out...but the church did decide they had souls...after killing a large majority of them first...

*shakes head in disbelief*

[This message has been edited by WebShaman (edited 07-05-2002).]

Fig: I agree about Constantine - there isn't much evidence that anything he did on the religious front was done for anything but political reasons.

quote:

---

evolution question - how does evolution account for completely different species appearing spontaneously in the fossil record?

---

Species don't appear spontaneously in the fossil record expect (in the broadest interpretation) where the animals tend not to preserve well and the finds of them are incredibly rare.

Other than that this is a form of the arguement about the lack of transitional fossils. First there are two reasons to explain it:

1. Punctuated equilibrium

2. The fossil record is incomplete and so there will appear to be less smooth transitions.

This is also just not true - if you look at the hominid fossil record we clearly have remains that are like us but not us (around 600,000 years ago - in fact you probably extend this back to Homo erectus around 1.8 million years ago) and we see a gradual change to modern humans (around 100,000).

Again I'd direct people to the talk origins site (and in this case the Fossil Hominids FAQ although there are a wide number which address this issue).

[edit: And I agree with what WS said on the issues of souls - such an arguement has been used to justify some pretty nasty acts. I would also say that it is based on a number of unprovable assumptions and is awfully circular]

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

WebShaman: Here is what I think, and this is an uneducated responce, but I have a pretty good idea of what I am talking about. Aboriginies are still around today, and are funcioning members of society. Those that aren't have feelings, religion and social events. Maybe Bugs could better expand on this, but my impression of a soul, and apparently Websters impression to, is:

quote:

---

The animating and vital principle in humans, credited with the faculties of thought, action, and emotion and often conceived as an immaterial entity.

---

IMHO, they have souls, and the people who killed them for not having a soul were just trying to find an excuse to take over their land and freedoms, eg: The Native Americans.

Somebody correct me if I'm wrong...

As for Adam and Eve

i hope i don't bore you with a little story (one of my favorites) from the KJV Bible
it speaks well to the topic of the debate

Acts:17:22-33

Then Paul stood in the midst of Mars hill, and said, Ye men of Athens I perceive that in all things ye are too superstitious. For as I passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with this inscription, TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you.

God that made the world and all things that are therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands; Neither is worshipped with hands, as though he needed anything, seeing he giveth to all life and breath and all things; And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation; That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he is not far from every one of us: For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.

Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art or man's device.

And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent: Because he hath appointed a day in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he has raised him from the dead.

And when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked; and others said, We will hear thee again of this matter.

So Paul departed from among them.

I hate when people put words into one's mouth. nowhere did i say, or intend to imply, that with groups of people that co-existed that some had souls and some didn't. i'm almost offended that that closed-minded of a thought would even be attributed to me based on what i've written in here in the past. i've openly talked before about the wrongs that religion has in fact committed on societies in history and that people have often used God's name to cover their own predjudices.

*shakes own head in disbelief*

my basic thought on this comes from the translations from the original text in Genesis, which says something to the effect of that God breathed a "sprit of life" or soul into Adam. there are also references by biblical historians to creatures "like humans but not human" in the times before Adam. does it mean they didn't draw on cave walls, have tools, etc.? no, it simply means they lacked "neshama", a soul. how does this relate to the idea of aborigines pre-dating many other peoples? don't know, i hadn't ever read anything about that until this thread. i'm doing some reading on it in general now and trying to find out more on how this whole idea could work.

as far as evolution i was just asking a basic question, i don't have enough knowledge there to argue it as intelligently as i'd like to at this point. the one thing i do think is that with evolution that bothers me is that the statistical chance of life evolving is just so miniscule it, well...takes a lot of faith

chris


KAIROSinteractive

Fig: I don't think we were suggesting that is what you were saying just that similar arguements have been used to justify some pretty bad things

Yes the odds are low (the Drake equation shows out how small the odds could be) but the Anthropic Principle makes it clear that if if conditions weren't right then we wouldn't be here asking these questions



___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

Ok, let's seperate the two topics for a minute - the 'soul' thing...actually, it is very common (well, to be blunt: just about all 'people' describe themselves as 'the people' and the rest are 'not people'...seems to be a very 'human' idea with most early tribes...it has always been my impression that the old testament is the history of the Hebrew tribe...thus, one would expect that...the 'us against them' thing...'We have souls, and they do not' sort of thing...)

Now, evolution...that's something entirely different. And the odds of it happening? Hehe, it used to be a small number (though if one looks through the information that I posted, one could see that it is not so unprobable as one might suspect...). However, since those pesky German scientists found the conditions that one needs to produce the 'amino acids' (building blocks - proteins)...the odds have vastly improved. So the origin of the building blocks of life are not difficult to explain...what is difficult is the 'chain' to more complex organisms...some of which is understood, some not so well...but we are getting there...

I take it that the moment that someone 'creates' life in the laboratory (from inanimate materials), the creationists (and god-believers) are going to go nuts...probably the word 'blasphemy' will be used repeatedly...which is really an exclamation of 'You can't do that...it erodes our Faith! That's reserved for god only!'....go figure....

I suppose I should also address Bugs' arguement using the idea of a conscience. Esp:

quote:

---

This Law of Human Nature, this sense of right and wrong, this conscience the vast majority of us experience is REAL.

---

I have a number of objections to this:

1. That there is a Law of Human Nature - you use the examples of 'civilisations' but one were to venture far into the wilds of places like Papua New Guinea you would (at least until recently) find tribes who didn't share your ideas on what is acceptable (large scale cannibalism for example).

2. These are the same 'civilisations' that have been responsible for some of the most organised and widespread horrors: The Holocaust, the murders of Jews during the Crusades, the Inquisition, Mai Lai, etc.

3. That there were somehow some kind of conscience that separated us from the animals but other animals that live in groups (chimps, gorillas, elephants, dolphins, etc.) all tend to moderate any kind of desire to run wild and kill without provocation. I would argue that things like conscience and alturism are more easily explained by some kind of 'selfish gene' arguement. Its probably a reflection of our primate heritage.

4. You mention 'civilisations' but there is probably a need for more restraint in our behaviour in increasingly urban environments as tribal conflicts within cities would quickly lead to anarchy.

So what I am saying is that civilisations may not be as civilised as you give them credit for (in fact they allow brutality on a much larger scale), that what is 'right' is actually more dependent on one's society and most certainly cannot be defined as a Law, that there are more likely evolutionary/biological reasons why we display behaviour that has been interpretted to prove the presence of a conscience and that having to live in urban environments has forced us to further moderate our behaviour.

I'll throw any other ideas in when they occur to me.

Thoughts?

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

Hehe. Why does that sound familiar?

I'm back... been away for a bit... I've got a lot of catching up to do I can see. Wow, some good stuff going on here. It's amazing how much stuff can transpire when you're away for just a few days.

. . : slicePuzzle

Hmm...I'm really getting concerned here! You see, I thought that this debate would of been finished by Wendsday, because I'm leaving on a bike trip which will take about 25 days to complete, and will have no access to a computer during that time. So basically, I have about 1 and a half days untill I leave, and will most likely not be able to finish the debate unless it speeds up very quickly, which I'm sure would put a lot of undo stress onto people. So, my question is, if a question is not posted for me, would somebody be willing to take my spot in the debate if my question is not posted by Tuesday (PST)?

I'm not sure. But as far as I'm concerned I don't think time is really that important. This is the sort of topic that comes up a lot and so if this formal debate takes a while to actually complete, I think that's fine because "it's one for the archives" so to speak. But that's just my take on it.

Correct. There is no hurry or time limit involved here. Just come on back when you are able and your question will be waiting on you. Have fun on the bike trip!

Cell Number: 494

Thanks BeeKay and Bugs, actually, I'm leaving tommorow, since theirs nothing better to do. Maybe I can get to an Internet Cafe and answer the question. Oh well...Cya!

Interesting point Emps...but I think Master Suho covered it, as well...however, I also must disagree with our six-legged friend when he says

quote:

---

This Law of Human Nature, this sense of right and wrong, this conscience the vast majority of us experience is REAL.

---

According to the Aboriginals, this 'reality' is just a dream...and not real at all...so in regards to a 'conscienceness of right and wrong' that we 'experience' is real...no, I don't think so...it is just a figment of our imaginations, an attempt to 'imprint' the laws of nature with our own...

Bugs is half-way correct in saying that all Humans (unless insane) do have a sense of Right and Wrong...it's just that this sense is not a global conscienceness...rather, it is individual...

And it doesn't matter what I believe, or under which society (if any) I live...I still have a sense of Right and Wrong...we often useterms such as Negative and Positive, Good and Evil, etc, to express this. At the basic level, all it really means is: That which I want is good, that which I am prevented from getting, is bad (unless I don't want it). That which hurts me, is bad. That which feels nice, is good. This are basic feelings, and even animals have them, to an extent.

To live together in groups though, one starts to need rules...first to survive against outside threats, then to survive (and co-exist) within...

In very large groups, one needs laws, and ways of punishing those who violate them (in the public eye). Otherwise, one soon has anarchy and chaos, and the group disintegrates into individuals...

WS & Suho1004: Unless I've missed something I don't think I've just repeated Suho1004's arguements have I? Its definetely one aspect of Bug's arguement I wanted to examine further (no rush though Bugs )and there were points that hadn't been made (although Suho1004 had mentioned some things I thought it worth putting in my take on it).

All very interesting and congratulations to Beekay for getting this moving

I'm not sure if it has been mentioned before ( ) but I'm wondering what the pro camp make of religions that differ hugely from one with a belief in a God or Gods - what about Buddhism? I believe that they don't have a God as such but what about Atheism? It is a belief system with about as much valid evidence going for it as any other religion.

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

Emps: I wasn't implying that you repeated my points. I was just saying that parts of your argument sounded, well, familiar--as in similar, but not necessarily the same. You brought up points that I didn't discuss (for example, calling into question the whole concept of a "civilization"). I focused more on the dangers of ethnocentrism, etc. I just think we had different takes on a similar subject, that's all. I hope my comment didn't come across in a negative way...

Wow! Go away for a few days, and all kinds of stuff just goes on without you! Dang! There is so much reading here!

Let's see, we have the question of souls, the question of evolution, and I think someone just brought up the question of reality... All of this sort of blends into a theory I've read a little on concerning multiple realities, and the belief that the world as we know it exists because we agree that it exists. I.E.: Consensual Reality. The idea is that everyone's reality is separate, but that there are certain things that we agree exist, like, cars and roadways, and computers and PhotoShop, and the Asylum, etc. So the previous quesitons of the soul and evolution could fit into that whole little theory right there. That one person's reality, creationism, may not be another person's reality, atheism, but that we still agree that we're here anyway. Right? Anyone care to comment on that one? I'm interested to see where this goes...

And Bugs, how goes the answer to that question? No rush, just curious...

[This message has been edited by bodhi23 (edited 07-09-2002).]

Suho1004: Sorry I was just having a 'comedy moan' as I hadn't properly read all your posts

Your point about attitudes to copyright is a good one (and well worth bringing up again ) and as well as more extreme examples like cannibalism there are many others: cruelty to animals, genital mutilation, execution of criminals, women's rights, slavery, etc. I suspect we would struggle to find many things that every culture agrees upon.

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

back

Emps: Hehe, that's OK. I must admit I've been having a very rough time keeping up with everything here, and I've probably not been doing nearly as good a job as you have.

If we can backtrack for a moment, though, I'd like to ask you a question about something you posted a few days ago. Maybe I'm just an idiot (most likely), but could you elaborate on your comments about the Drake equation and the Anthropic Principle. I looked them up through Google, but I'm not too familiar with them, and I'm having some difficulty connecting the dots, so to speak. Sorry to be so dense.

Suho1004: I know how you feel - take your eye of things and it is tricky catching up!!

Be warned that it is late so I'm not firing on all cylinders but:

Drake's equation: If I've got it right is the equation about the possibility of intelligent life in the rest of the universe. It relies on so many assumptions that it may be unusuable but it does seem to show that life is unlikely but not impossible.

Anthropic Principle: This seems to be used to support some funny ideas out there on the Internet but my understanding of it is that an arguement for the existence of God is that the conditions for intelligent life to emerge are so unlikely (see above) that there must have been a God to make sure everything works just right. But AP says that if all the conditions weren't right then we wouldn't be sitting around discussing the point. I always felt that it was the kind of thing that Douglas Adams should have come up with (he probably did).

Hope that helps explain some of what I said.

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

Well, Drakes Equation and the Anthropic Principle have all been blasted into the past by the late findings of those German scientists...that's why I didn't even bother attempting to dis-credit them...

OK, I think I get that... but I'm not 100% sure. The AP definitely sounds like something that Douglas Adams would have come up with.

WS: a tad vague there, don't you think? How about enlightening the ignorant masses? Maybe just a link to the work of those German scientists?

Sorry to be such a pest, guys, but I haven't really studied this stuff before (although I think I have heard of the Drake principle). I feel like Frankenstein.

Unfortunately, I haven't been able to find an English version of it yet...maybe it is too new...but here is a German text version...that led to the research...still looking for the link for the actual research...I'll post it when I find it (I read the article in a German Science Mag) http://www.goog le.de/search?q=cache:yZQmz5sUbm0C:www.esotericpark.de/download/Funke%2520d.Sch%C3%B6pfung.doc+Baustein+des+Lebens+Neue+Entdeckung&hl=de&ie=UTF-8

Here is a link to the discovery of Building Blocks of Life in Space...albeit in German (sorry!) http://mitglied.lycos.de/WolfgangKlier/index.html#Bausteine

Ahhh...finally found something on this (in English) http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0101/30spacelife/

And the hammer...this link (you just gotta love the source...hehe..) http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0328/p11s01-stss.html

I think that the evidence is seemingly overwhelming...this is very interesting http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid_1492000/1492411.stm

Finally found the link I was looking for...this one http://www.cosmiverse.com/space03280201.html . As one can see, there are two different findings, one by NASA, the other by those German Scientists...very interesting, because though done in different ways, they both result in amino acids...i.e. Building Blocks of Life...read and weep, you Creationists...

And here is why...you Creationsits are pretty quick...but not quick enough...(hehe...) http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/0418space_amino_acid.asp ...here we see a 'rebuttal' (though if anyone actually goes into the biology that he is talking about, one can blow all his arguments away quite easily)...one sees he forgot to rebut the German findings...probably because

a) He doesn't understand German (though the findings are also in English...whatever)
b) He can't (because he obviously doesn't know what he is talking about)

Also, he doesn't take into account of new findings from Astronomy (strange that this would be his downfall...hehe)...that many of the 'necessary' enzymes (and amino acids) have already been fround in Space...a couple of the above links show this...isn't it strange that he doesn't take that into conclusion? But of course it is not strange...it's what all Creationists do with information that they can't refute...it is either not mentioned, or 'conveniently' forgotten...

Either that, or he isn't 'up to date' on the issue...maybe we will 'hear' from him soon on this...I'm sure there are Creationists working feverently on their 'rebuttals' right now...the poor sops...

Now, don't get me wrong...if the Creationists had better, more competent answers, then I would be in their camp...but they don't. Often, what they use as 'proof' of a rebuttal, is pure 'hogwash'...such as 'There are no documentated examples of Evolution'...oh no? Well, they 'explain away' current mutations (that we can observe) and genetic differences as anything but evidence...however, this work here http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/generalscience/neogenesis_scitues_010501-1.html really just blows the lid off of such rebuttals...because it proves that living things can be altered to have an entirely different 'building block' structure (as we know it) and still live, reproduce, and thrive...a 'man-induced' evolution...

And for those interested in the 'Panspermia Theory', here is the latest (and interesting) evidence http://www.planetary.org/html/news/articlearchive/headlines/2001/cometlife.html and here http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid_1142000/1142840.stm

Whew! That turned out to be more of aqn answer as I originally wanted to give...

Sorry about that, Master Suho...enjoy!



[This message has been edited by WebShaman (edited 07-10-2002).]

WS: I'm not sure why you wanted to discredit either the Drake equation or the Anthropic Principle?

These findings (vitally important in themselves) have little effect on AP (as this relates to intelligent life - these amino acids are only part of the various things that need to be in place for intelligent life to emerge - others include the laws of physics, our occupying a habitable zone in the Solar System and having something like Jupiter to sweep up a lot of the comets, etc.) and it just affects some of the assumptions underlying the DE giving a result which obviously suggests that life is much more likely out there.

Good stuff - thanks for the evidence - it really invalidates another basic Creationist arguement

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

Well Emps...the reason(s) are simple...because we (officially) don't know what the 'optimal' conditions for Life are...we assume that Life as we know it, is normal (i.e. the standard), so the conditions leading up to it must then be 'optimal' (or normal, standard, whatever) for it to occur...

But research shows that this may not be true. That Life can form under much different circumstances...that maybe Life is much more flexible then we have been led to believe. That it could (and probably does) form under other circumstances, and conditions.

One must consider that we are at the beginning of such explorations (when it comes to evidence, that is...)

Therefore, theories based on previous evidence? are probably not correct...and need to be revised...

And the theory on the evolution to higher intelligence...well, at this time we have very little evidence (officially) to 'prove' this theory...until, of course, we meet other intelligent beings not of this Earth...

Then we will probably have to revise the theory, anyway.

Now, one could attempt to use the software area (i.e. artificial intelligence) to provide evidence for higher intelligence...that is something that is up-and-coming...well, we will just have to wait and see, won't we?

You see, the current evidence seems to suggest that Life is a natural result of the conditions of the Universe...just like matter, gravity, energy, etc. Thus, it is not 'special', or 'unique'...rather, it is a common, rational process as to be expected from an 'ordered' environment...and as such, pretty much takes the guesswork out of the 'Creator' issue...because the creator, if you will, is a natural process i.e. like a law of nature.

[This message has been edited by WebShaman (edited 07-10-2002).]

WS: I may be missing something but I'm not sure why this discredits the Drake Equation - it just changes some of the numbers that get put into it (as does the discovery of more and more planets suggesting that they too may be commonplace).

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

It's not that it 'discredits' it...it superceeds it. And that is what I was aiming at explaining...that's why the 'effects' of these new 'pieces' of evidence are so powerful...it alters much of the 'landscape' if you will...

Of course, one could 'revise' the Drake Equation, to fit...however, the Drake equation wasn't really meant to deal with this...that Life could be a common, natural result of nature...and may exist everywhere...or at least potientially...like I said, we are just at the beginning of understanding how this stuff functions...it may (or may not) require a 'standard' (or optimal) condition(s) to come into being...we just don't know...

The evidence suggests that the potiental is everywhere...all the building blocks are at hand, and so are the means...what we don't yet understand are what conditions (if any) are necessary for the potential to turn to actual Life forms? Until we better understand that, most theories are going to 'go astray', and will end up having to be revised (or dropped).

BTW - this really puts a 'damper' on the soul thing, doesn't it? For either

a) all things have souls

or

b) nothing does

mm, ok. so what's to say that an omnipotent creator didn't simply create who-knows-what out there and then simply put the pieces into motion to create life where He saw fit? that's what i really don't get, random facts are introduced and people are like "ooh, this shatters the idea of creationism". why? the creation of the entire universe is covered in like 31 verses in genesis yet we "know" exactly how God would've done things? i think that's about as arrogant as it gets...

chris



KAIROSinteractive

New article on CNN: Ancient skull challenges human origins
http://www.cnn.com/2002/TECH/science/07/10/ancient.skull/index.html

Cell Number: 494

Fig: The God you describe there would be a tricky one to address (and disprove) - it is the God who set the first domino falling, the God that the 'torch of science' has consigned to the shadows that we can't quite explain yet. However, that isn't the interventionist Christian God (who sent his son to Earth to save us all) or just about any other God that has been argued for here.

Its an unfalsifiable God and the reason I'm an agnostic not an atheist. Its a God of moving goalposts.

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

Whoa. Um, thanks, WS. I think.

That was a whole truckload of information, there. Very interesting stuff. I've got to be honest with you, though--I think Fig has a valid point. While this may counter some of the arguments that creationists (who are human) use, if God is really omnipotent/omniscient/omnipresent etc., why do we finite humans think that we can explain Him, make Him fit into our theories?

As Emps alluded to, though, some may see that as taking the easy way out. They would say, "If that's how we're going to perceive God, then how are we supposed to argue whether or not God exists?" And to that I would reply, "Now you know why I elected not to join the formal debate." This is why I just hang around the peanut gallery--I still find it to be a very interesting discussion, and I'm always interested in learning about what other people think (and why).

I can't pretend to keep up with what's going on here, but please carry on. It's quite a show!

*leans back, munching on some peanuts*

Ok, after dealing with the 'Christian God' thing...on the the general 'God' thing...

First of all. if we then decide to go with the 'Ultimate Creator' thing, there are a few problems...

a) It must have existed before the creation of the universe...which would then beg the question, what came before?
b) Because it existed before, in something else (we'll call it notUniverse for now), then how did it come to exist?
c) If one goes with the 'creator' thing, then one is stuck in an endless loop...who created the creator?
d) It is quite possible that this 'creator' from the notUniverse was a 'group' that decided to create something...which doesn't make it 'God'...at least, not in the philosophical sense...(sort of like the Wellworld series...isn't it?)
e) If we consider for a moment that maybe there are many Universes, then this 'Ultimate Creator' must have created them all...or created the conditions that led to their creation...hmmm....which brings one back to a)

But the absolute bottom line of the thing is, then we could never answer this question...for despite all our advancements, irregardless of how powerful, knowledgable, etc., Mankind becomes, one could always juxtapose such a question...because in this case, the 'Ultimate Creator' is only responsible (if you will) for the creation part...and nothing else (in this, the meaning must be clarified...the 'creation' part means 'beginning'...where it all started from...).

So let's go further...and suppose that Mankind does make the jump to a real innerstellar race...thus greatly improving his chances of survival. However (after who knows how long...), eventually the Universe may end...i.e. change to an unihabitable environment (at least for Mankind). What then? So this senario begs the question of 'There must be more than just this...' otherwise, despite everything that Mankind accomplishes, it is doomed to extinction...so a way would have to be found either to 'stabilize' the Universe...or to create/move to another...or to move through time (and thus, locking Mankind into an eternal loop). Now that would be freaky, wouldn't it? We meet a much older race of Mankind in Space somewhere, somewhen...that has 'lived' all of our future history...

Personally, I believe there is a purpose behind why Life strives, to reproduce and evolve...and that is, just that. Therefore, I don't believe that the Universe is the 'end station' of everything...or a prison, or a 'container'. I believe that more, it is an environment, and that it must be possible to either leave it, or to re-create it. Or at least to change it...as is possible with all environments. And that is what Mankind is really good at...changing things...we seem to be a sort of 'catalyst' for change...at least we fulfill this role very well. But then, maybe that really is the purpose of Life...who knows?

So when one suggests the 'Ultimate Being' thing, it moves the debate from the 'factual' into the 'Philosophical' realm...

But...

Considering the Physical 'aspect' of the Universe for a moment...our current theories lead to the conclusion, that if one gathers enough matter in one 'place', it begins to 'draw' energy to it (this is the case of a black hole)...which, in turn, suggests that with enough energy/matter, the 'physic laws' can be changed...or suspended (or at least some rules are changed, affected by this). We also know that observing alone can change things...which leads to some interesting conclusions.

Because of these 'interesting pecularities', I believe that it is indeed possible to 'escape' this reality...but then, this is just conjecture on my part...

[This message has been edited by WebShaman (edited 07-11-2002).]

Emp, i think you're making some things mutually exclusive that doesn't necessarily have to be. let's get really simple for a second, i have in my hand a quarter. i'm going to drop it and i'm assuming its going to hit the ground. do i think God is going to step in at that moment and make sure the quarter hits the ground? no, that'd be silly. God has created a world with rules and laws that maintain themselves, He has the freedom to step in wherever He likes but our universe as a whole is rather autonomous.

why is it so hard to believe that the creation of the universe was any different? that God didn't simply set things into motion like He wanted? let's take a chunk of genesis 1:

3 Then God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. 4 And God saw that it was good. Then he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light "day" and the darkness "night." Together these made up one day.

6 And God said, "Let there be space between the waters, to separate water from water." 7 And so it was. God made this space to separate the waters above from the waters below. 8 And God called the space "sky." This happened on the second day.

9 And God said, "Let the waters beneath the sky be gathered into one place so dry ground may appear." And so it was. 10 God named the dry ground "land" and the water "seas." And God saw that it was good. 11 Then God said, "Let the land burst forth with every sort of grass and seed-bearing plant. And let there be trees that grow seed-bearing fruit. The seeds will then produce the kinds of plants and trees from which they came." And so it was.

NOTHING in the passage gives much detail at all about how things happened, processes, steps, etc. it simply says they happened. the preconceptions of man and the church have limited God to how He did certain things, scripture didn't.

chris


KAIROSinteractive