Beware the beast Man, for he is the Devil's pawn

[Mizango]

Agreed. I was reading about what some thought in the Nature journal. The conflicting thoughts are very interesting.

I am particularity interesting in what Neil Shubin thinks about it, seeing as he is one of the leading paleontologist in the US and one of my favorite scientists. I actually got to speak with him via email from the University of Chicago a few weeks ago and still have a boner over it. :D

I emailed him this morning to just see what he thinks, Ill post here when I get a reply.

[Metah]

The human mind is not as "limitless" as you might suspect. We have extreme trouble quantifying anything that is too small or too large. Our poorly evolved mammalian brains aren't designed to comprehend such things.

Are you sure you read what I typed? I said that, as long as we continue to exist as a species, our ability to conceive will grow. It would be quite silly to say that, many thousands of years from now, the people of the future would not be able to conceive and quantify more things than we can now. Or am I wrong here too?

I don't even want to reply to most of your post because it's mostly just you typing to hear the keys being pressed. It would be kind to call the post nonsense.

I shouldn't, but I shall give you the luxury of replying to your whole post.

Instead of your pointless rant, why don't you explain what logic you used to justify a belief in god.

What makes it rant? Is it because its long? I'm sorry if I can't explain why I beleive in a god in a single paragraph. Well, I guess I could, but it'd be very long. Also, I do explain what logic I used. I also asked for input on my opinion, but as you've said earlier, you do not wish to reply to most of it (leaving me to question if you even read it, considering what follows next).

This is dumb. You are making nonsensical arguments. I could name countless examples why this is outright wrong. I won't because it's easy enough anyone can think of one...

Name some of these countless examples where something with more perfections came from something with less perfections (greater from lesser).

If it is perfect, then it should be able to do what ever it wants. You are assigning some attributes to something that by definition is unknowable.

With the current limitations of my mind, I explain that perfection is an upper limit where nothing higher can be. I may not know what the limit is, but I can understand that there is some sort of limit known as perfection. I also think that something greater cannot come from something lesser. In that sense, how could god create something greater than it? God by definition has all perfections, which means that it is the greatest thing to exist, ever. Yet it is still limited, because perfection does not mean limitless potential. Again, if you can provide some of these multiple examples where something greater came from something lesser, I would greatly appreciate hearing them.

This is another fatuous statement. The concept of a beginning and and end is another construct of our under evolved minds. There is no reason something can't exist eternally in a different state. It's not like your body vanishes when you die, everything that you are composed of goes on to feed new generations of life. Every time we take a sip of water, there's a 99.9999% chance we're drinking something that once was dinosaur urine.

I never said I knew the answer to whether or not existing always was a perfection, nor did I say anything where what you say here counters it. Again, even that water I've sipped, which has a 99.999999% chance of having once been dinosaur urine, had a beginning as dinosaur urine. The dinosaur had a beginning, the water it drank that was likely the urine of another being had a beginning. It does not stand to reason to me that something that exists cannot have a beginning.

How is that reasonable? There hasn't been an ounce of reason in your entire post.

According to you, I suppose. From the way you sound, I don't think you even gave my opinion a chance. I look only for that which is closest to being the truth, yet you post very little that combats anything I have said.

You posit things about an unknowable entity. You butcher ontological arguments to justify a specious claim about reality and existence. I can't believe that a god so powerful would create something with so many imperfections. The human body alone is wrought with flaws.

An unknowable entity, sure. We are limited, I can't understand everything about God, hell, maybe I can't understand more than 0.01% of what god is. But there is one thing I am sure I can understand: existence. Butcher ontological arguments? I don't think I butcher them, but that's just me I suppose. If god could do anything, then why couldn't it create us with so many flaws, for some reason that we either can't understand, since you yourself keep repeating that our minds are so incredibly flawed. Don't think I disagree, but you're the one who keeps saying it.

If that is how you see the world around us, you really need to crack a book.

Oh, a book about god? I guess I'll start reading the bible. Or is that not what you want?

YouTube - Neil deGrasse Tyson - Stupid Design

"99% of all life that has ever existed is now extinct."

Don't see the relevance. I never said always existing as in its existence continues despite the fact that it is gone, like your dinosaur argument. I'm strictly speaking about beginnings.

Here's what I think about your post. You assert things about philosophical concepts that have been debated for generations with no gravitas or understanding of them. You look at the world we are bound to with a naive myopia. You posit things that are simply false. There would be little point arguing with you because you basically said nothing for 9 paragraphs. Simply put, debating philosophical ideas is pointless, and what little points you tried to convey were blatant fallacies.

Humour me.

Sorry for being such a strong critic, but I hate people who talk like this.

I don't beleive you are sorry whatsoever. I did not share my opinion expecting people to join with me. I shared it so I could perhaps gain further understanding, for all I seek to know is what is closest to the truth. However, all you've done is sling insults and provide very little that appears more reasonable than what I have said.

[Effluo]

Don't forget the 30 mil long boat made out of wood, assuming that 2 of every animal on the boat was 1 inch long! Oh and never mind that the average Elephant requires roughly 60 gallons of water a day! Ohhhhhh! Dont forget about the fact that there are nearly 1 million individual species of Insects that we know of, but yeah, what do we know right?

I love people that neatly ignore facts to fit their cute little fairy tales. To each his own, if having a giant wizard in the sky helps you feel safe in your home then so be it. You realize that all of us have to take that leap of faith right? Next time your granny is diagnosed with terminal cancer, instead of turning to science and opting for Chemo, have sister Jones' pastor pray for her and let's see she holds up. True believers are cured of all ills correct?

This is where most people get it wrong.. Noah was actually told to take 7 of each of the clean animals, and 2 of the unclean... So that boat just got a whole lot bigger

[Mizango]

This is where most people get it wrong.. Noah was actually told to take 7 of each of the clean animals, and 2 of the unclean... So that boat just got a whole lot bigger

OH SNAP!

[zoobernut]

This is where most people get it wrong.. Noah was actually told to take 7 of each of the clean animals, and 2 of the unclean... So that boat just got a whole lot bigger

Did he only have to bring 2 of the "unclean" animals because for them it did not matter if the entire species was repopulated by 2 individuals rather than having a wider genetic base?

Does this mean that humans are "unclean" animals since we started out as only 2?

[quannum]

"clean" and "unclean" animals? aware me

[Xno Kappa]

Nah, I heard there was some ribs or some shit in Eden so obviously black people had a hand in it. So about tree-fiddy people in Eden. Unless....OH MY GOD, GOD IS BLACK!!!

[Effluo]

Did he only have to bring 2 of the "unclean" animals because for them it did not matter if the entire species was repopulated by 2 individuals rather than having a wider genetic base?

Does this mean that humans are "unclean" animals since we started out as only 2?

There are no questions, you just do what you're told, ha! I have no idea why it goes on to specify 7 of each of the clean animals, and 7 of each of the birds (which interstingly, more birds are considered unclean that clean), and 2 of each of the unclean animals. Maybe God wanted to be Eco-friendly way back then?

[Mizango]

Nah, I heard there was some ribs or some shit in Eden so obviously black people had a hand in it. Unless....OH MY GOD, GOD IS BLACK!!!

Arian brotherhood wont have such shenanigans. If God were Boxy Brown I would convert in a heartbeat purely in the name of awesomeness.

[Xno Kappa]

I'd do it just for the pie.

[Effluo]

"clean" and "unclean" animals? aware me

Leviticus 11:

And the LORD spake unto Moses and to Aaron, saying unto them,

Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, These are the beasts which ye shall eat among all the beasts that are on the earth.

Whatsoever parteth the hoof, and is clovenfooted, and cheweth the cud, among the beasts, that shall ye eat.

Nevertheless these shall ye not eat of them that chew the cud, or of them that divide the hoof: as the camel, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.

And the coney, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.

And the hare, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.

And the swine, though he divide the hoof, and be clovenfooted, yet he cheweth not the cud; he is unclean to you.

Of their flesh shall ye not eat, and their carcase shall ye not touch; they are unclean to you.

These shall ye eat of all that are in the waters: whatsoever hath fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, them shall ye eat.

And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you:

It goes on quite a bit longer, with specific details and animals.

edit: and to clarify, Noah was to take 7 pairs of each of the clean animals, so 14 per species. Yup, boat just go bigger. There is another part to that story, but i'm afraid to ignite this any further...

[Max™]

Eating squid is a sin!

Know what made me discard all this crap?

I was like 6 and going to Sunday School, while they were going on with the usual shit, I started reading through the book they gave me, as I am wont to do (what's that, someone trying to learn about religion on their own? can't have that!) and noticed the passage about women being unclean during their period, dead lizards being unclean, and whatnot.

I went outside, found a skink, and tried to figure out why it would be ok to touch this little guy while he was alive, but not if I killed him.

Pretty much went from "maybe this is the real answer", to "well, this is ridiculous, but it seems to help people" then, and later to where I am now "this shit is insane, you should be in a fucking institution for seriously claiming it to be a fact."

AND LO, YE SHALL NOT TOUCH THE DEAD LIZARDS ON MONDAY AFTER CHURCH, FOR THEY LIKE THE BLEEDING WOMEN ARE UNCLEAN, SO SAYETH THE LORD!

[Seraph]

Arian brotherhood wont have such shenanigans. If God were Boxy Brown I would convert in a heartbeat purely in the name of awesomeness.

But hearing that voice from the heavens would be awesome. 70's music and all.

[quannum]

I don't trust anything that bleeds for 7 days and lives.

http://www.infobarrel.com/media/image/1550.jpg

[kareface]

Are you sure you read what I typed? I said that, as long as we continue to exist as a species, our ability to conceive will grow. It would be quite silly to say that, many thousands of years from now, the people of the future would not be able to conceive and quantify more things than we can now. Or am I wrong here too?

More BS. Our capacity to conceive hasn't grown, other then minor genetic drift, we haven't evolved much if at all from the beginning of the civilization. One of the affects of larger populations is a homogenizing of genetic mutations. Our capacity is the same as it was thousands of years ago. The major changes is the methodology in which we view the world and the tools that allow us to move beyond our primate constructs. Which has time and time again come up against religions opposition.

What makes it rant? Is it because its long? I'm sorry if I can't explain why I beleive in a god in a single paragraph. Well, I guess I could, but it'd be very long. Also, I do explain what logic I used. I also asked for input on my opinion, but as you've said earlier, you do not wish to reply to most of it (leaving me to question if you even read it, considering what follows next).

To reference it as logic is a stretch at best.

Name some of these countless examples where something with more perfections came from something with less perfections (greater from lesser).

Beneficial genetic mutations? Evolution? If you look at smaller populations where punctuated equilibrium can take hold you see very rapidly how in a few generations something much more adapted to it's environment will evolve. Completely new genetic information from the predecessors. A better copy then the original. Not to ignore things like chemistry and astronomy. Are you really that poorly educated?

With the current limitations of my mind, I explain that perfection is an upper limit where nothing higher can be. I may not know what the limit is, but I can understand that there is some sort of limit known as perfection. I also think that something greater cannot come from something lesser. In that sense, how could god create something greater than it? God by definition has all perfections, which means that it is the greatest thing to exist, ever. Yet it is still limited, because perfection does not mean limitless potential. Again, if you can provide some of these multiple examples where something greater came from something lesser, I would greatly appreciate hearing them.

Again you are assigning attributes to something you know nothing about. On top of that, this offers no evidence in favor of your opinion of gods existence. Simply speculating on the facets of unknowable entity isn't justification of his existence.

It does not stand to reason to me that something that exists cannot have a beginning.

Why? What reason does everything require a beginning and and end? In the entire breath of human existence, nothing has every truly been created or destroyed. Everything that we know today has only changed states. There's no reason to assume that even after the universe as we know it is gone that it won't continue on in some other state. Is it hard to conceive that our brains have created the construct of beginnings and ends to help quantify the world around us. The same reason we have trouble comprehending quantum occurrences, we have trouble conceiving something that is always changing but never absent.

According to you, I suppose. From the way you sound, I don't think you even gave my opinion a chance. I look only for that which is closest to being the truth, yet you post very little that combats anything I have said.

Only if you consider it to be subjective truth. Subjective truth is worthless. Anything can be true and anything can be false subjectively. Please point out a single point you made that is objectively true that supports your argument. Look at some of the statements you made, they are laughable.

In its simplest form, god is defined as 'that which nothing greater can possibly be conceived'.

You are again, assigning attributes to something you can't possibly know anything about.

Its also possible that a being exists that has a perfect ability to conceive.

Vague and completely speculative.

Now, let's forget about everything else that can be possibly conceived and focus on one thing that we as humans can conceive; existence. Existence is strange, for something can only either exist or not exist. But even then, that is not true, for a half-human, half-fish entity known as a mermaid does not exist and yet exists through our knowledge.

More philosophical nonsense.

So let's agree that existence establishes itself in degrees; non-existence, existence, and any amount of existence between them.

You just throw that jewel out there like it's something we can all agree upon when minds much greater then your own have debated the nature of existence for far longer then you've been alive. I'm not sure if it's arrogance or ignorance that allows you to be so cavalier about such decelerations, but I can assure you that I don't agree with your ideals of existence. Something doesn't necessitate existence simply because we can conceive of it.

Things that do not exist can be granted some degree of existence by those that exist, but it is not perfect.

You assume that to exist is a perfection? Perfection is an ideal, another construct of the human mind. Nothing is truly perfect, nothing. Just because our mammalian brains created the ideal doesn't mean that it reflects with reality. You ascribe perfection to existence like you are the arbiter of such things. You can't simply dictate that something is true and expect to use it to justify your already poorly defined position...

That said, I do think god created the big bang, evolution and the natural laws such as gravity. It seems illogical to me that god couldn't have done so.

You have nothing in your entire post explaining why those 2 sentences make any sense. Occam's razor states the exact opposite of what you're suggesting. There is no reason to infer a supernatural entity with evolution, it works just as well with out one.

Since god has all perfections, if it could conceive of something with fewer perfections than it, than it could create it, much like a human can create a machine.

Then does it stand to reason because we have so many imperfections that god is not likely perfect himself? You make circular statements that require the premise be true in the first place to justify it. We aren't perfect -> a perfect god can't create something with out imperfections -> evidence god exists. Remember, evidence has to point to only one explanation. Just because we are not perfect does not provide evidence to anything. To say that this line of thought deserved ridicule would be a gross understatement.

However, we as humans cannot create something with more perfections than ourselves, for something greater cannot come from something lesser (or at least I know of no such instances).

Another blanketed assumption based on speculation. Assuming that we ignore the fact that our progeny will slowly accrue new genetic information, there is no reason why down the road we can't 'create' a new form of life. We've already manipulated animals and plants to our benefit, but we have managed to create several of the proteins required for life in the lab. It took countless times longer then we've existed to create the first forms of life, even then it was simplistic and fragile. Given enough time there's no reason why we might not be able to engineer a new life form from scratch.

It would only follow that god be the same, it cannot create something with more perfections than it, especially if I reason that god's ability to conceive and understand as perfect. It would understand that it has all conceivable perfections, and as such would be limited.

You are defining a supernatural entity with traits based on a human construct and comparisons with the natural world, in which the entity can't exist. You don't see anything wrong with that? You spout nonsense prophetically, like you have some grand understanding that everyone else seems to lack. The arrogance of those statements is breathtaking.

In this manner, I think god is perfectly above us, but not infinitely above us.

You use the term 'above us' as some vague reference to superiority, then ascribe another attribute of a limitation based on a logic-less assumption.

There must be some sort of limit that can be defined as perfect, or else it is not perfection.

You assert things with no basis other then "because I say so". Why does perfection have a limit? Can something that has a limit really be perfect? Wait, don't answer those questions because they are purely philosophical. There is no point because there is no answer. You can debate the nature of human created constructs until you are blue in the face, and gain nothing from doing so. You use a philosophical argument as the basis of your post, but it's not evidence, piratical, reasonable. There is nothing to be learned by doing so. The problem with philosophy is it rarely accurately represents reality. We have the Socratic method for this very reason. At some point we realized that it's pointless to debate the nature of the unknowable. Once we threw away the desire to contemplate the unknowable and work within the natural realm, to formulate questions that could be answered, we started casting away our need for bronze age superstitions. Each major discovery loosened gods grip over our intellectual facilities.

I'm tired of rehashing your old post. It's truly best described as 9 paragraphs that say nothing. You have no real argument, you make pointless assumptions and simply state things as true to suit your case. If it was any other topic, going about making a case in the way that you did would have you laughed off the forum.

Provide me with facts, objective truths, tangible evidence. Anyways, back to the more recent post.

With the current limitations of my mind, I explain that perfection is an upper limit where nothing higher can be. I may not know what the limit is, but I can understand that there is some sort of limit known as perfection.

This is pointless, why even bother saying it. What does this matter. I'll give you an example. Because of the limitation of my mind, I can't conceive that black people are equal to whites. I can't define why they are less then us, but I understand based on this assertion I just made that white people are superior. It's a non-fucking-argument.

I also think that something greater cannot come from something lesser.

But that just makes you dumb, not right.

God by definition has all perfections, which means that it is the greatest thing to exist, ever. Yet it is still limited, because perfection does not mean limitless potential. Again, if you can provide some of these multiple examples where something greater came from something lesser, I would greatly appreciate hearing them.

More of the same shit. You CAN'T KNOW THAT. You are taking a human construct and using it to justify a trait for an unknowable entity. You must be a god to know what you know.

Again, even that water I've sipped, which has a 99.999999% chance of having once been dinosaur urine, had a beginning as dinosaur urine.

Or was in the state of urine, and changed it's state to something else. It never began, or ended, only changed states. Even if you ram those water molecules together and break them into subatomic particals it simply changes states into energy. Just like you can change energy into matter. Even with antimatter the interaction gives off energy. You've never seen anything begin or end in your entire life. Only states of matter in different forms.

It does not stand to reason to me that something that exists cannot have a beginning.

This isn't a fact. However you use this idea as the basis of other arguments and definitions. Your entire post is just taking something that can't be proven true or false and using it as a basis to justify your opinions. By definitions this is not rational. You can't properly justify your beliefs because you have no basis for them.

From the way you sound, I don't think you even gave my opinion a chance. I look only for that which is closest to being the truth, yet you post very little that combats anything I have said.

Again, personal truths are subjective. You have provided us with no objective truths to justify your position. Nothing. I DARE YOU TO POINT THEM OUT.

I never said always existing as in its existence continues despite the fact that it is gone, like your dinosaur argument. I'm strictly speaking about beginnings.

No you referenced evolution. Evolution isn't a beginning, it didn't even start until well after life had existed. There were other forums of gene transfer that still exist today. Even strictly speaking, our origins were far from perfect.

I shared it so I could perhaps gain further understanding, for all I seek to know is what is closest to the truth

Then read a book. You haven't provided any real truths. Speculations and foundation-less statements would be a kind way to describe your ideals.

How did you get to this age with your reasoning faculties in such a state. You use the term logic and fact, but I'm not sure you understand what you are talking about. Don't bother replying to this post point for point, all you need to do is provide me with a single fact that supports your argument. Not something that you suppose to be true or assume everyone agrees with. Something that you can support, something not subjective. Because subjective truths are only true to you.

I'm going to blow that up because otherwise you are just going to make a huge reply saying how your opinion is valid and what you said was based in fact when it clearly wasn't and merely asserting that it was doesn't change anything. So one more time for good measure:

Don't bother replying to this post point for point, all you need to do is provide me with a single fact that supports your argument.

[Neosutra]

If he had a fact to support his argument Im pretty sure he would be on CNN right now. But /clap for taking the time to go through all of that and respond point for point.

[Metah]

Define perfection. I already told you my definition of it, what is yours? I reason that perfection has a limit based on its definition, which from what I've seen, you've said almost nothing about; except that my definition is wrong because I'm saying that in order to recognize perfection, there must be some limit, but you say that it is pointless to realize that there is a limit if any, for it makes no difference.

About evolution as a way for something with more perfections to come from something with less perfections, that's not a satisfactory answer. A newer cell may be closer to perfection than its predecessor, yet it has achieved no more perfections than the older cell.

I'm not sure why you keep debating about how things change state in regard to a beginning or end. That's not what I'm talking about whatsoever.

By the way, never did I use the word 'fact'. Nor did I say I had any non-subjective evidence. So you're right, and I guess my opinion is completely backward and foolish.

But something you said stroke me as a bit strange. Why could god have not created evolution and the big bang? Or is your answer that they simply exist seperately from each other and one does not need the other to exist? Evolution, the big bang, etc, they can only exist without god if you state that god does not exist.

Lastly, you say you hate talking to people like me, but I think you are far worse. You take enjoyment out of telling people who beleive in a higher being that they are wrong, but you cover your ears and shout that they have no proof you can see with your own eyes or understand with the limited human mind, and that there is no reason to argue or have an opinion on anything that you cannot prove. Then you waltz away with your nose so high up that people can see right into your nostrils.

But that's wrong. There is value in it, there is a reason: to better understand the beginning of everything, to better understand ourselves as not only humans but individuals. Only a fool would say that there is no value in trying to reason the existence of god. However, I do appreciate the criticism.

[Max™]

I said there is no explanatory power granted by positing God as the initial cause.

Rightfully so, because it simply raises new questions.

If you COULD give answers to those, then you would have a point.

I don't know about Kareface, but I don't take joy in this, I do however have a vain hope that I'll be understood.

I understand your side of the fence, as I myself have stood there and looked around.

Have you ever been on this side?

[Faris]

such an interesting discovery. so much shit written; I'll be honest i haven't read all the posts, but skimmed quickly through them.


you really think scholars, philosphers, thinkers and scientists from all over the world havent had a debate about the existance of God? you guys are debating on something that has been raised, many many times. and to question it again and again, shows how much you know about this and how much you learnt each time you read this exhausted topic. You're bashing God, did you ask yourself, "what if im wrong?" "what if there is a God?".

I dont know about you guys, but just to be safe...i'm gonna believe in him, cus the athiests are not talking about good deeds, heaven & hell; they're just saying big bang > monkeys > humans. If i believe in the half-assed story the athiests are giving me, im risking something very very serious.

Fred Hoyle - English Mathematician
"The chance of higher life forms might have emerged by chance is comparable with the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junk yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from materials therein."

I usually like to troll, but i see alot of people don't really know about religion. they just believe what their media is telling them; for those you really are serious about this issue, please consider these videos and think about it (I hope you understand his accent):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E2s14T6x5AM

About Darwinism:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OYmjLrzKNl8&NR

[Diamicles]

tl:dr

is this thread about the weird uncle that only drinks Milwaukee's Best, all day, every day?