Venting

[Dark One]

Nothing is 100% fact. Do you tune out the entirety of existence as well?

Nope, just the finite arguments both for and against the existence of a deity - that's it in a nutshell.

There's no way to legitimately "understand the nature of the universe," whereas curing AIDS is more likely just a matter of time. So after we cure AIDS, am I allowed to believe that it's more likely than not that there is no deity watching over me?

For every AIDS cure, there is another petty cancer problem, poverty problem, inability to travel out of the solar system problem, etc. No need to harp on the AIDS thing, the point being that I simply find it silly that we can profess to deny the existence of a deity based on science when that theory is coming from humanity, a spec of dust presence in the universe. That's all. It's a generality and an opinion.

Basically what I'm saying is that if anyone tells you that he understands the universe, he's an idiot, full of shit, doesn't know what he's talking about, and doesn't at all represent the type of people you're dealing with in this thread.

I didn't direct what I was initially saying at you, Furious B, etc. It just seemed the appropriate thread to express my opinion.

Jason

 

[skeptik]

I still don't understand what relation you see between whether or not one feels it's reasonable and rational to believe that there is a god and whether or not we have solutions to all the world's problems. Do you think that the one question is so vastly above everything else that if we know that, we must have all of the answers to all of the other vexing questions of our time? If so, I think you're headed in the wrong direction as far as your line of thinking goes, but I can see that nothing is going to be gained from saying anything further, so I'll just leave it at that.

 

[Dark One]

*bashes head against wall*

You're right - nothing further to be gained. Peace.

 

[skeptik]

Word.



METAL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Krigloch the Furious]

less bullshit religious talk and more metal

 

[Dark One]

LOL

Cheers.

 

[Nico]

Sorry if I've been taking a condescending tone in some of my posts, it was unintended.

in the universe, absolutely not. to believe that we are the only creatures in existence (outside of those that exist on this planet) would be straight up ignorant. and perhaps other life forms have developed a belief in a higher power. it's very likely.

however, in our solar system, which is from my understanding somewhat of an anomoly in respective of it's placement and properties in the galactic collective, we are the only creatures that can even comprehend god's existence.

would you not agree with that?

if that is the case, does it not stand to reason that because we ARE such an anomoly, god's creation of such an oddball solar system and seemingly random placement would be COUNTERPRODUCTIVE to our understanding its existence (presuming it is completely aware that we have only our own senses to base our beliefs on)?

Hmm, yes. Just a misunderstanding of your wording I needed to clarify. I don't fully understand what you mean about our solar system being an anomoly though. Could you expand on that?

yes and no.

you're absolutely right that tests result in data.

however, all the compound data from those thousands and thousands of tests generally point to a very specific conclusion (which again become edited and modified as time goes on and new discoveries are made). these conclusions that all this data points to is where any rational person would draw their beliefs. of course this all depends on fairly consistent results.

are they completely infallible? no, but they are VERY probable.

The issue I have here is... how exactly does anyone expect to find proof of God through science? Do you just expect tests to result in physically impossible conclusions? Lumpy anomolies in their data and graphs? Science, at least in its current incarnation, has neither the tools nor the desire to seek or understand the nature of God.

elaborate on this. i'm not sure i completely understand you.

To reduce God to numbers in order to comprehend His existence would destroy Him. Not sure how else I could phrase it. Anyway, we're thinking on the wrong level here.

 

[Nico]

and i agree with that. the thing is though, if we don't make a certain decision on what is reality and what is not, we have no basis for how we live our lives here on earth.

so where do we draw our beliefs from? science or religion?

my argument is that basing our belief systems off science is the smarter and much more rational thing to do.

You're absolutely right of course. Many of the archaic notions of the church that have been impregnated in society are doing far more harm than good.

of course there are things that we can't conceive of. yet.

there were many things that were inconceivable that now are completely conceivable.

and the gap of knowledge and ignorance is becoming less and less every day.

You seem to be looking at it as if there's a tangible limit to what we can discover. I look at it as the opposite.

the truth is, i don't even disagree with what you're saying.

you're absolutely right that our perceptions are flawed. there are so many things beyond my scope of understanding and expertise. like the mechanics of quantum physics, thorough understanding of string theory, choas theory/the butterfly effect, etc.

but we as humans have a collective of information. we build off prior knowledge to lead to new conclusions that are very sound. we have men that dedicate their entire lives in one subject to give us a small amount of information on that very specific subject. and those little tiny bits of information that so many men and women have put time into have allowed for us to see reality just a little bit clearer.

and it compounds and grows. and we become closer knowing who we truly are.

I'm not so sure. I generally agree with what you're saying, I just don't think the end of learning is quite so tangible as you describe it.

 

[swizzlenuts]

The issue I have here is... how exactly does anyone expect to find proof of God through science? Do you just expect tests to result in physically impossible conclusions? Lumpy anomolies in their data and graphs? Science, at least in its current incarnation, has neither the tools nor the desire to seek or understand the nature of God.


To reduce God to numbers in order to comprehend His existence would destroy Him. Not sure how else I could phrase it. Anyway, we're thinking on the wrong level here.

The only type of god we could possibly find through science would be a type of personal god, like the god of the bible. This could be done to show there is an unaccounted thing that we can quantify, and the more we study the more we could find out about it.

You, on the otherhand, seem to be talking about a god that is similar to a first cause god, which we have not figured out a way to test that, yet. What justification do you have for the existence of one? You can't put it into words, you can't describe it, yet seeing that the world has had some time of deity, makes the idea more plausible?

 

[MajestikMøøse]

To reduce God to numbers in order to comprehend His existence would destroy Him. Not sure how else I could phrase it. Anyway, we're thinking on the wrong level here.

I think you're on the right track.

 

[Krilons Resa]

Things are not what they appear to be, nor are they otherwise.

 

[skeptik]

Objects in mirror are closer than they appear.