Religion

[Acriku]

In other words, let's go further rather than stagnant?

[gryphon]

Yep, that's a verry "accepted" way that schinetist nowedays [ some of them ] have. Ok, we don't know absolute truth. But we have some scientiffic theory's, and they have a certain degree of truth in them, so way not use those and make them better. If we see they arn't correct, we expand the theory so the new "things" get explaineble. And science grows, a bit more with every fact it's gathering.

But then this also is another "scientific" theory, and the be hounest, I'm not a supporter [ not compleatly ] of this theory.

[The_old_worm]

You can try to expand the theory to get the new data to fit, but sometimes you can't.  In that case, new theories are needed, and if a theory is proposed that totally contradicts your own, is better supported, and more likely you have to accept the possibility of being wrong.

What is it about this process that you don't agree with Gryphon? I admit, it's not 100% accurate because some real truths might be highly unlikely from our perspective, some things happen regardless of the odds, but it is the best tool we have to find the most probable truths.  

[gryphon]

Yep, that right. Theory's get replaced by other more acurate and compleat ones. Not just editing the curent but sometimes we get a compleat new set of theory's.

Like from, Newton to Einstein and now the upcomming of quantummechanics. Some thinigs that the theory of Newton just could explain / predict so einstein "made" a new, better or more compleat one. The reason I didn't mension it was that I just wanted to give a "small" comment because you seem to have figured out the main parts. :)

And that second question ?! ;D

I won't explain it compleatly because it whould fill a lot of lines and is mainly besides this topic [ N, don't start another one like last time just because one of us has "an idea" ! ;D ] But basically, a lagre part of it is what I've said earlyer in this topic and there is a lot more about that -> science is just coinsidence to us humans, we can only see the world in an orderd for, but that isn't the world we are seeing. And of that orderd world we make theorys that just hapen to fit what we see. So we see things first, draw a conclusion and then that conclusion is science ?! Noway it's orderd information because we saw it as orderd in the first place.

[ a small example, mathematics has been created by the human mind, the cijfers, rules, every thing is been "just a figment of our mind", there is no "mathematical world out there". It's in us. ]

Second, and just as important if not more. Taken the fact that science is "true", the line of progress is being desided by the public opinion, use to the public and the correspondence to present and past science. So things that are "non-scientiffically" but still can be explained scientifically arn't considerd as "real" or worth investegating.

[ And Mahdi before you say anything, yes, there is a lot of resemblance with Nietzsche and I know you don't like his theory's. :) ]

But as you might have guessed, or not. I do give science a lot of credit. But I also do think that science has verry strict limits. Limits it will probebly never be able to extend out of.

But don't use this in the debate of this topic, it's totally non-related to it and if it is in any way related it whould take a lot, really alot of typing to explain. And that would divert this topic to mutch, it's not going over "my idea of reality". It's an debate.

:)

[jacobdouds]

Would anyone like me to type my Theory on why I know God exists?

[Terror]

bless you... and may The Force be with you!! :D

[Gunseng_Harkonnen]

Let..STARWARS! No!!!

God doesn`t exist. If bible says that he made world in 7 days, how you explain creation of universe? And if bible says that God made Adam and Eve and they were first people how you explain evolution theory? And why Christians claim that their God is one and only one. Thre is so much different religion that how do you know that yours is true?

[jacobdouds]

Okay, this is very hard to explain here. First to quotes.

-A  miricle by definition is something that happens without cause.-

-Everything, wether Biological or Artificial, must have a parent of sorts.-

Okay, as easily as I can explain this. 'Everything has a cause. Going back. You have parents, your parents have parents, your parents parents had parents. etc.

One blade of grass came from another blade of grass, which came from another etc.

Your computer had a creator. Refer to parents part. Every part of your computer had a creator in some way.

Everything has a cause. So when you trace it back. Eventually you have to get to the main cause. The cause without cause. i.e. a Miricle. God, to me, is that miricle. Unless he had parents, but still, it keeps going back. Eventually, even the most hardened Aethiasts have to admit that the cause without cause is God.

[Gunseng_Harkonnen]

Cause without cause...people who believe in God maybe think that what you have just said is true, but for me if happen something that haven`t any cause its not miracles in this mean what you said. They can be some forces but it could be psychological forces, like people with stigma: they believe such much that their brain make real what they believe. In universe are things that we can imagine but it stll doesn`t explain God han in this.

And evolution...everything must have parents...yes, but bible says that human don`t goes from apes and with this I can`t agree. And first creatures in our world could appear from energy than created universe.

[jacobdouds]

I will follow this up tomorrow. Tired.

[OnAMission]

I need a bit more than a "parent before parent" theory to prove that god exist to me. I'm not saying he doesn't, he may do, but at the moment, to me, no.

[The_old_worm]

Gryphon, actually we are in total agreement about the limitations of science.  And by using the scientific theory alone, we cannot break out of those boundries, but it is when we apply our imaginations and human reasoning to this mix, that I think we have the best tool we can to find the most probable truth.  However, even this has it's limitations, because all is based on human perception, and like I said, human perception is a pretty lousy tool for seeing truth.  All we can do is, like I said before, is accept those most likely truths with the understanding that they might be wrong.

Jacob, another "God of the Gaps" follower.  One that says if we can't explain it, it must be God.  We might never know how the universe was set into motion.  It may be beyond our comprehension. Does that mean it's God's doing? Maybe, or it could be that a totally natural explaination is out there beyond our grasp of comprehension.  The point is that just because it is unexplained doesn't make it divine in nature.  It just means we haven't figured it out.

Pointing to God to explain the unexplained is as old as humanity itself.  People made up Gods of lightning, Gods of the Earth, Gods of the stars etc... to have some kind of control over events they are powerless against and unable to explain.  To point to God as the explaination of something is to bow out of the search for the real truth.  

[gryphon]

We do agree on a lot, but when you say "but it is when we apply our imaginations and human reasoning to this mix" that I don't agree. Don't know if you read my comments in "differences between humans and animals" [ or somthing like that ] but I truely doubt that our human mind is capable of "thinking all by itself", they way we think can verry well be just our "natural" instinct, and this could be the same as that instinct that shows us the world in that "pre-ordered form". And so we still havn't been able to "extract" ourselfs from that [ causuale ] thoughtpatern we need to see the world. Even our mind works like that, so mayby our mind isn't as creative as you might think.

[ to break out of this, so we are not mearly humans I need to introduce something I just don't know, God [ explained in my way, not the theologicall ]. It's in a way the same mistake Descartes and Berkeley made. But then we all have our believes ;) ]

Jacob, you are refering to one of the 3 proofs for the existens of God. [ the 3th ]

1- onthological, we have an idea of perfection, something that's perfect. Now we as inperfect beeings can't have a idea of that if it doesn't exists.

2- cosmologicall, begin of everything. The cause in itself.

2- theologicall, a design of things suggests a creator, so there has to be a creator.

[Acriku]

A thought on the "onthology", how can you say that? You cannot say we can't do something, because we are unpredictable and unbeknownst of our potential. And we are able to observe how we are not perfect, thus reaching a point of imagining there is a perfect being out there. Also, I think our hope and mind made up the idea of perfection. That's my story and I'm sticking to it. Till I find a better one.  ;)

[Gunseng_Harkonnen]

Jacob and another thing about faith and evolution theory. I think that you agree with his that Darwin had right. So one thing in bible is not correct. Some people could say that they don`t believe in this part. But if you belive in God, you believe in everythin and if you dont believe in God you don`t belive in nothing. I see uncorrect thing in bible. I don`t want say nothing about somebody faith, a lot of people need faith to know that it is something after death but some part would be strange even if I was christian and would make me think.

[gryphon]

I don't think we are talking stricktly about the Bible. Just about God and religion in a broader perspective.

But I also don't "believe" the Bible. ;)

The 3 proves for the existens of God arn't mine. They are the "basic" of vieuwing the big "sciences" that do say they are able to prove the existance of God. And although they say things that a lot of poeple have a lot of questions by, in a way they also make some sence.

And as with a lot of theorys, the all have points that some poeple don't believe. But that doesn't matter. It's just as with science besides the point. The 3 ways of proving God ar at this moment the most "accurate", so worth investegating and exploring, just as with science. It's not perfect jet but they are getting there.

The 3 point don't prove that God really exists, just as with the debate about what science is really proving. It are just the 3 main "road" of exploration [ with different angels eatch ] to the existens of God.

[Acriku]

Our "imperfect" thoughts can only not imagine or comprehend what a perfect being would be. It can hypothetically just say, ok there must be a being with no faults and need no improvements, i.e. perfect being.

Also, these "proofs" all started with believing God existed. And it assumes God is perfect, and it assumes the Bible is correct that God created the universe in the beginning. And it how does the design suggest a creaor?

[gryphon]

I've edited it a bit because it was to fussy, even for me ;D

When we hypothetically say something, don't we have an idea of it than ? So than we imagine it. [ and that you denied in the first sentense ]

[Acriku]

But we can't imagine the perfect being, only the thought of a perfect being. Can you picture a perfect being in your head?

[gryphon]

It doesn't have to be a being, just perfection. [ according to the onthological prove. ]

"Can you picture a perfect being in your head ?"

"only a thougth of a perfect being"

Didn't you answer your question yourself ? :)

[Acriku]

Ok, let me clear it up. We can only have thoughts of the existence of perfect beings, or perfection in general. You get it? I kind of doubt the existence of perfection in the universe, but then again my mind is too unevolved to comprehend it.

[gryphon]

Yep, think I do. :)

And I think that's also the basic thought of that theory. Our minds are to unevolved to comprehend it, but still in a way we got the idea all buy our selfs. And it's not watherproof [ far from it ] but still another theory that is "to pausible" to simply let go off and stop investegating.

[ the part you questioned is the thing the "followers" of that theory think does happen in the "real world", so it's a contradiction. ]

I think we mean the same but it's just this ^%^(% language barrier that prohibets me to explain it correctly.

[jacobdouds]

In continuation. I never stated what god was exactly.

First. Adam and Eve, yaright. Back then, when Genises was writen, people didn't have a clue about evolution and the Big Bang.

God is just whatever came before this Universe. That is what God is. Maybe god is just the last universe. According to the big bang theory, It will all come back and implode, resulting in the next big bang. Therefore, we are god to the next universe. I don't know what god is, wether he is a cause of science like the big bang or if he is some sort of spirit with great powers. But either way, what created us is god, and that may just be the previous universe imploding.

[gryphon]

Than you suggest that we as humans are important in this univers. The whole univers is here [ and the next will be also ] just because for us to exist in ?

What I'm tryng to say :

1) what if you'r right, the big-bang theory. But human life is just a coinsidential byproduct, and that just happends to be present in this univers. The next won't have it and the previous didn't have it as well.

Then there isn't any God. The big-bang can be strickly "natural". [ so no God what so ever ]

2) the above is true [ 1 ] but human live was ment to happen. Then we have been created by the force that made the fact that we had to happen. [ God or nature, either way it was nessecary so we can speek of creation. ] And we can speek of a God.

3) The big-bang and the entire univers has been created by God [ or another force as nature but let's caal it God for now ] because it had to evolve as it has now, live had to bee created and sutch. .. .

[jacobdouds]

As I said, it is very hard to explain. But, I don't know what God is. I am just using the word 'god', to say what created us. If it is a divine being or a bunch of gas exploding. I believe thet humans have a purpose Gryphon, but, in saying that, aren't you just trying to explain a nother facts of life, like adam and eve? We may just be another creator that got ahead in the thinking said of evolution. But, we may also just be a dream of some super bug living an a parrerell universe.