3 of 6
3
Part II: Evolution takes a beating, live coast to coast!
Posted: 22 April 2005 08:45 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 31 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2957
Joined  2004-12-02

Hi Iisbliss, I would say that my spiritual beliefs were founded upon the truth taught to me by the Holy Spirit, the comforter. Some of the core belief was based on the spiritual reasoning that occurs when you read the bible. Some of the core belief was through experience. Regardless, the core belief is there. Therefore, I stand unreservedly in God’s corner.

No amount of fancy super intelligent conclusions about the meaning of life, based on man’s logic, can change my core belief.

Basically, to put it in layman’s terms…our body is like a car. The mechanic (doctor) can tune the car, fix breakdowns, etc., but he had no part in designing the car, appropriating the materials, building the car, etc., of this, he has no clue. Same with the origins of life and the like. Scientists can determine some facts and upon a string of related facts, the make conclusions that become theories that liberals try to say is fact. But they had no part in creating matter, designing matter, appropriating the materials, building the universe, etc., of this, they have no clue.

So please do not determine or enforce what mankind should believe (and I say that in a kinder-gentler voice).

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 April 2005 10:36 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 32 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  291
Joined  2005-04-02

[quote author=“TheChampion”]Basically, to put it in layman’s terms…our body is like a car. The mechanic (doctor) can tune the car, fix breakdowns, etc., but he had no part in designing the car, appropriating the materials, building the car, etc., of this, he has no clue. Same with the origins of life and the like. Scientists can determine some facts and upon a string of related facts, the make conclusions that become theories that [some] try to say is fact. But they had no part in creating matter, designing matter, appropriating the materials, building the universe, etc., of this, they have no clue.

As usual you couldn’t say anything of substance without taking an arbitrary swipe at “liberals”, by way of a non sequitur. I know self-identified conservatives who nevertheless consider some scientific theories to be facts. But aside from that, I completely agree with this.

You aren’t dreaming. I said, I completely agree with this. I believe that God, the creator of the universe, exists. This kind of reasoning is pretty much the basis of my belief in a creator of the universe(COTU). However, this does not in any way compel any particular religious dogma or specific nature of the COTU. This does not even require that the COTU exist at any point after the act of creation.

Science is based on the belief in a relationship between cause and effect. The universe exists (in the sense that we understand the word), therefore something caused it to exist. The “origin” in theories about the origin of the universe, such as the theory of the big bang necessarily start somewhere in the middle, not the start of the universe. It assumes that a unimaginably massive chunk of matter exploded and we are living in the remnants of that explosion. However, there is nothing in the theory that suggests where that chunk of matter came from, only that it must have existed, since matter exists in the universe. Only a big question mark. Other theories about a cyclical pattern in the universe, i.e. big bang, expansion, contraction, repeat, still don’t suggest where everything came from. It is left as an area of future research. Well, wherever it came from, I choose to call it the COTU, aka God.

So I believe that there is COTU, but this doesn’t tell me anything about the nature of such a being, much less what position such a being might take on gay marriage. It is absurd to believe that such a being would even care about such things. Even more absurd to believe that chanting and kissing His ass every Sunday, or in your case, at every opportunity, would have any influence on any plans He might have. Finally, there is no way that human beings could ever possess a book that could limit in any way the power or discretion of such a being, if He’s even paying attention.

And more importantly, I live a good life and treat other fairly and obey the secular commandments, i.e. #‘s 4-10, as any judeo-christian I’ve ever known or heard of, but without any divine wrath or reward to frighten or entice me into obeying them. In fact, the COTU doesn’t seem to take much interest in enforcing ANY of the “commandments”. It’s called a conscience. If you have a strong one of those, you don’t need anything or anyone else to tell you how to behave.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 April 2005 11:19 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 33 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2957
Joined  2004-12-02

What a thought provoking post! You’ve given me lots to think about, therefore I shan’t answer you right away. Let me think about it.

(great post!)

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 April 2005 10:02 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 34 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  197
Joined  2005-03-05

Champ,

While you’re at it, be sure to check out the Mangasarian essay I listed earlier, http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/m_m_mangasarian/truth_about_jesus.html

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 April 2005 02:58 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 35 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1229
Joined  2004-12-22

Well Bulldog, other posters have pointed this out to Champ before with no avail, that even if you accept a First Cause, that doesnt make The Bible the “truth”

But back to my original point, spirituality is an emotional yet very real experience.

To have any kind of dialogue you have to accept that some people are operating out of this experience.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 April 2005 03:23 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 36 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  291
Joined  2005-04-02

[quote author=“Iisbliss”]Well Bulldog, other posters have pointed this out to Champ before with no avail, that even if you accept a First Cause, that doesnt make The Bible the “truth”

Thanks for the heads up, Iisbliss. I’ve been in this forum long enough that I already knew better than to get my hopes up with TC.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 April 2005 04:14 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 37 ]  
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  69
Joined  2005-04-12

Science is based on the belief in a relationship between cause and effect. The universe exists (in the sense that we understand the word), therefore something caused it to exist. The “origin” in theories about the origin of the universe, such as the theory of the big bang necessarily start somewhere in the middle, not the start of the universe. It assumes that a unimaginably massive chunk of matter exploded and we are living in the remnants of that explosion.

There are some things happening that do not require cause and effect. The quantum world, for example, where things ‘pop in’ and out of existence without rhyme or reason (or cause).

The universe did not come from an explosion of a massive amount of matter. Spacetime exploded. Though the reason is unknown, part (or ALL) of the answer may lie with the quantum world. That the reason is unknown, is in no way evidence of a deity.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 April 2005 12:37 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 38 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2957
Joined  2004-12-02

What is difficult for people to grasp is that time itself has no meaning, in our understanding, “prior to” the Big Bang.  Time is one aspect of what emerged from that cataclysm, so to speak of “before,” “after,” “the middle,” whatever, has no real meaning.
Though quantum physics claims no “causality” on that level, I would prefer to suggest that the causality of such things is not something we can presently observe or identify, thought there is something—or more likely some collection or arrangement of factors—that causes these interactions that we can’t (yet) describe.
Because people are born into fear of the unknown, many find it comforting to jump off the train at various points along this learning process in which we are all engaged and grip onto something reassuring, however empty it is.
That leads us back to Champ.  Take it away!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 April 2005 02:39 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 39 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  291
Joined  2005-04-02

[quote author=“Dragon”]There are some things happening that do not require cause and effect. The quantum world, for example, where things ‘pop in’ and out of existence without rhyme or reason (or cause).

This is my understanding also and this lack of identifiable cause and effect is precisely why science is having such a hard time understanding things at the quantum level. The ability to make testable predictions to experiment with tends to rely on identifying a cause and effect relationship. So it doesn’t seem like we are really disagreeing here.

[quote author=“Dragon”]The universe did not come from an explosion of a massive amount of matter. Spacetime exploded.

There are many compelling rival theories about the origin of the universe. I only use the ‘big bang’ as an example.

[quote author=“Dragon”]Though the reason is unknown, part (or ALL) of the answer may lie with the quantum world. That the reason is unknown, is in no way evidence of a deity.

I am not saying that the initial creation of matter is evidence of a deity. But it is reasonable to assume that some force acted to cause all matter in the universe to come into existence. This force is the COTU and I choose to call that force God, without any assertions about the nature of this force.

For all I know, every single atom in the universe is an independent entity and somehow caused itself to come into existence. If that is the case, then God would simultaneously be every atom in the universe and each atom individually. It is possible that the COTU was some force that existed only for some brief time necessary to create all matter in the universe and ceased to exist right after that. There are infinite possibilities concerning the actual nature of the COTU. That is beside the point. I believe that the COTU exists (or at least existed at the moment of creation) and nothing more than that. The evidence that leads me to that conclusion is existence itself (as we understand it).

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 April 2005 10:50 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 40 ]  
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  69
Joined  2005-04-12

Though quantum physics claims no “causality” on that level, I would prefer to suggest that the causality of such things is not something we can presently observe or identify,..

Then again, there may be no cause. For a long time, I stubbornly nurtured the idea that there may be some underlying cause for the otherwise ‘apparent’ uncaused events now occurring, but it seems to me this is not the case. Ill stick with the no-cause theory for now, because thats where the evidence points.

Those who insist that the universe must be caused because all events are caused (well, at least thats what common sense would have us believe!), then there must be a First Cause, are mistaken. If the premise is wrong then the conclusion is, too. We’ll just have to be satisified with not knowing all the answers for awhile..

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 April 2005 11:12 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 41 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2957
Joined  2004-12-02

Dragon,
The suggestion was certainly not of a “first cause.”  I merely meant that our ability to observe and understand things at the quantum level is still immature, and that the “causes” may be unlike what we expect or are accustomed to.
I also pointed out that time—therefore, causality—becomes much more complex as the singularity of the Big Bang is approached.  One can slap the label of “God” on whatever is unproven or beyond our ken, but the term suggest something definite, whereas science acknowledges the debatable nature of theory.
I respect your support of “no-cause.”  But terminology is a stumbling block—it may just be that it is a type of Cause for which we haven’t established a name.  “Evidence” without causality is a tricky prospect.
This notion of spontaneity can also be twisted into a Deistic idea, implying that this unknown motivation represents God.  A hazardous path to tread.  Let’s hope something demonstrable comes out of the deeper study of quantum physics, so the religious nuts can drop their veil of authority once and for all.
(I can become too optimistic at times—I apologize.)

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 April 2005 11:13 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 42 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2957
Joined  2004-12-02

It occurs to me that we’re giving too much credit to Champ’s opinions by having these discussions on his silly thread.  Anyone care to redirect?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 April 2005 11:29 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 43 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2957
Joined  2004-12-02

Tis not relevant?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 April 2005 11:31 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 44 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  197
Joined  2005-03-05

Especially when we just wind up going around in circles.  That’s why I suggested he read the Mangasarian paper… it cuts right to the heart of these issues, including the most basic issue, did Jesus exist at all?  I thnk he makes a persuasive case that Jesus himself was a myth—and that certainly the character we’re given in the NT was.

And like Sam, he challenges the morality of the Bible, the bloody history it has inspired, the fallacy of faith, etc. 

Spread it around:  http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/m_m_mangasarian/truth_about_jesus.html

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 April 2005 12:22 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 45 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2957
Joined  2004-12-02

I’ve already researched that article. But if you wish, I’ll go back and do all over again….sigh…..and see if there is any validity there.

I recall that red flags started going up from the get go on that one. And though the article appeared intellectually sound, parts of it fell through the cracks because there were reasoning and historical errors in the analysis.

But hey, it was interesting. I’ll give it that. A feeble minded man might be swayed by it. But a feeble minded man is usually unstable in all his ways anyway. That’s my take Cody. grin

Profile
 
 
   
3 of 6
3
 
RSS 2.0     Atom Feed