Evil Strikes Again

[Booms]

A new form of creationism is slowly gaining support throughout the nation, going by the name of "Intelligent Design." Wired Magazine has an article on in this month, but unforunately they don't post their magazine articles on their site (www.wired.com (http://www.wired.com) ) until the magazine has been out for a while.

Here are some links about the issue, one of them is pro-ID while the other is anti-ID (and correct). I only skimmed the two links (I need to head off to religious services pretty soon), but they both seem to represent their respective side well enough.

What the dumb people think. (http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/)
How the dumb people are wrong. (http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/nhmag.html)

[Pietoro]

I don't get what 'evil' has to do with anything in this topic. But whatever.

[Bhs Crew]

Well it's his thread so he gets to title it. I'm assuming he's linking creationism to evil, which all depends on your point of view.

[Glurin]

Given that he made "What the dumb people think." as the link to the pro-ID site and "How the dumb people are wrong." as the anti-ID link, (and refered to it as the correct one) I think thats a fair assumption, Bhs Crew.

[Andarcel]

Lol. Intelligent design, new? It's been around for centuries. For reasons I've already delivered ad nauseum, I think it will always have the last laugh - no matter how you look at it, it's wildly improbable that the universe could be this organized. But I really don't want to revive that now. Suffice it to saywhether or not biologists are bound by ID, it's going to haunt physicists for a long, long time.

Second link is useful. The first is completely useless, unless there's some essay buried in that site I missed.

And Booms? Most of the important people on both sides of this debate are far, far, more intelligent than you.

[Booms]

Haha, I guess my title (and link titles) were psuedo-trolls, but I had fun with them. Besides, evil is a subjective term; what may be evil to me may not be to you.

And Andarcel? The word you were looking for was 'knowledgeable,' not 'intelligent'.

[Essex]

well if it takes on the fevrant qualites that some of the people who support it take, then it could be seen that way.


If you ignore science and keep looking to the bible eventually we're all gonna get wiped out.

[Booms]

Here is a quote from the article:

"But scientists aren't buying it. What Meyer calls "biology for the information age," they call creationism in a lab coat. ID's core scientific principles - laid out in the mid-1990's by a biochemist and a mathematicion - have been thoroughly dismissed on the grounds that Darwin's theories can account for complexity, that ID relies on misunderstandings of evolution and flimsy probablility calculations, and that it proposes no testable explanaions.

As the Ohio debate revealed, however, the Discovery Institute doesn't need the favor of the scientific establishment to prevail in the public arena. Over the past decade, Discovery has gained ground iun schools, op-ed pages, talk radio, and congressional resolutions as "legitimate" alternative to evolution."

I don't know about you, but it seems to me that ID is forcing it's way into school curriculums on faulty premises, teaching faulty "science." It's attemping to put religion into science even though the scientific community does not support it.

I find there to be aspects of 'evil' in what the ID people are doing.

[Andarcel]

Haha, I guess my title (and link titles) were psuedo-trolls, but I had fun with them. Besides, evil is a subjective term; what may be evil to me may not be to you.

And Andarcel? The word you were looking for was 'knowledgeable,' not 'intelligent'.
No, I meant precisely the word I used, in much the same way you meant precisely the word "dumb."

[Booms]

No, I meant precisely the word I used, in much the same way you meant precisely the word "dumb."

Of course I realize that. The intent of my statement was to say that you have no idea how intelligent I am, so what you said holds no weight.

[Maullus]

Greetings,

@Andarcel
&
@Booms


Ya'll are mean. Just plain mean. :(

[Andarcel]

Of course I realize that. The intent of my statement was to say that you have no idea how intelligent I am, so what you said holds no weight.
Thus perfectly completely the symmetry between my remark and yours, which pointed irony has apparently passed well over your head. You have no idea how intelligent the various proponents (or detractors) of ID are.

Of course, having read samples of your writing and theirs, I feel I have better grounds for my comment than you did for those link titles. If you want to use cheap shots, expect to get them returned with interest.

[Bhs Crew]

Ok both of you arguing about the words is useless.

Let's change it to evolution vs. intelligent design as was the original point.

Evolution of course doesn't negate God creating the world; It is just a theory on how species change over time and new species are formed.

ID allows for minor changes in species but never enough to form a whole new species.

[Bartleby]

Thank you for the synopsis Bhs, I didn't have the patience to read the two positions. Just too lazy today :thumbsup:

[Booms]

Thus perfectly completely the symmetry between my remark and yours, which pointed irony has apparently passed well over your head. You have no idea how intelligent the various proponents (or detractors) of ID are.

Of course, having read samples of your writing and theirs, I feel I have better grounds for my comment than you did for those link titles. If you want to use cheap shots, expect to get them returned with interest.

Yes, but I was having fun with my link titles while what you said it seemed like you meant (much more than I meant what my link titles said). If I was being serious and believed that all ID people were idiots then you would have a point, but I won't blame you for taking everything that I say to heart.

And, excuse me, cheap shots? You're the one who insulted my intelligence,and if you think this thread was even slightly meant to insult you...get over yourself.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

:cheesy:

Booms stop being an idiot.


*points to older threads on issue, where AoA pwnt j00 on subject*

:bow:

[ScytheNoire]

this all has to do with the religious zealots wanting their religion to be taken as a science, since science is trusted and respected while religion is often not.

it has to do with getting religion into the school system and getting it taught as a mandatory course and as fact, instead of folk tales.

it's about brain-washing, mind-control, and giving them more power over the mindless drones, attempting to create more mindless drones as young as possible to follow and give them their riches and do whatever the cult leaders ask of them.

it's like the religious charity that will help you out as long as you swear allegiance to their god and follow their believes.

sadly, if you vote for Bush, it means you support this type of corruption.

[Bhs Crew]

this all has to do with the religious zealots wanting their religion to be taken as a science, since science is trusted and respected while religion is often not.

it has to do with getting religion into the school system and getting it taught as a mandatory course and as fact, instead of folk tales.

it's about brain-washing, mind-control, and giving them more power over the mindless drones, attempting to create more mindless drones as young as possible to follow and give them their riches and do whatever the cult leaders ask of them.

it's like the religious charity that will help you out as long as you swear allegiance to their god and follow their believes.

sadly, if you vote for Bush, it means you support this type of corruption.
Now that's not entirely true. Many people are voting for him as the lesser of two evils.



Booms: This is where both of you have to drop it. Drop it.

[Andarcel]

Yes, but I was having fun with my link titles while what you said it seemed like you meant (much more than I meant what my link titles said). If I was being serious and believed that all ID people were idiots then you would have a point, but I won't blame you for taking everything that I say to heart.

And, excuse me, cheap shots? You're the one who insulted my intelligence,and if you think this thread was even slightly meant to insult you...get over yourself.
Er - where did I say it was a cheap shot directed at me? :scratch:

I think your word choice was a pretty damn accurate reflection of your position, however jocularly phrased. And I have a very low tolerance for dismissing arguments in that way, funny or not. You can actually make a case, if you like, that ID people arrived at their position by being stupid or incompetent or ignoring science, and you can argue that they're subversives out to ruin education. But applying these labels without support makes you a cheap demagogue, and in my view fair game for the names you're throwing around.

[Graav Wolfsong]

this all has to do with the religious zealots wanting their religion to be taken as a science, since science is trusted and respected while religion is often not.

it has to do with getting religion into the school system and getting it taught as a mandatory course and as fact, instead of folk tales.

it's about brain-washing, mind-control, and giving them more power over the mindless drones, attempting to create more mindless drones as young as possible to follow and give them their riches and do whatever the cult leaders ask of them.

it's like the religious charity that will help you out as long as you swear allegiance to their god and follow their believes.

sadly, if you vote for Bush, it means you support this type of corruption.

I agree to a certain extent.
It is all about spreading more mass-hysteria. Wich is what religion really is.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Science and Religon need not be separated, indeed, they CANNOT be, if the "correct" understanding of both is precipitated.

[Bhs Crew]

Science and Religon need not be separated, indeed, they CANNOT be, if the "correct" understanding of both is precipitated.
I was waiting for that.

You sure took your time. Over two hours between scythe's post and yours.

[Andarcel]

The religious people on this forum have posted frequently and at length in their defense. The atheists have never bothered with anything but brief sputterings. I'm tired of it. If you want to call religion mass hysteria or the opiate of the masses or whatever Marxist crap you want, have the decency to include some evidence. Something. Anything. Even the Crusades, tired as they are. Better even worn and discredited arguments than this mindless loathing. It's really just boring to listen to you uncritically spew the same crap over and over.

If there's hysteria here, it certainly isn't on the part of the religious. And to me, a mindless drone is someone who doesn't examine his own opinions.

[Sage the Mage]

It looks like Intelligent Design is just a PC way to say Creationism Kinda like waste management technican is garbageman? Or is there some fundamental difference?

[Booms]

This argument won't end. If science does manage to explain something that was previously unexplainable (and credited to God), then something else that is unexplained will then be credited to God. Until science can explain everything, it won't win.

I just don't understand why people think that just because we can't understand something means that some omnipotent power did it. Maybe, just maybe, we as a species aren't smart enough to figure some stuff out?

Now I know AoA is going to say something about God and love and all that, but it seems to me that for us to think we could even begin to comprehend God's will is crazy.

[Sage the Mage]

I just don't understand why people think that just because we can't understand something means that some omnipotent power did it. Maybe, just maybe, we as a species aren't smart enough to figure some stuff out?

You got it: Maybe.
Maybe you're right, maybe AoA is right, maybe that guy with the tin foil on his head is right.

[Booms]

:cheesy:

Booms stop being an idiot.


*points to older threads on issue, where AoA pwnt j00 on subject*

:bow:

Haha, I didn't get pwnt, I just lost interest. :p

[Ologg]

Why do humans automatically assume that everything has a beginning, end and purpose, or cause? Those are all subjective terms created by humans in order to sort out the world we perceive. We see the world in a linear fashion in time, hence we assume everything has to follow those rules somehow, eg. the universe has a beginning or an end. Rather isn't possible that the universe just simply IS?


Monkey pull lever, monkey get banana!

[Glurin]

This argument won't end. If science does manage to explain something that was previously unexplainable (and credited to God), then something else that is unexplained will then be credited to God. Until science can explain everything, it won't win.

What makes you think science and religion are mutualy exclusive? Let me give you an example. A building blows up somewhere in the city (miracle). I say I did it (act of god). The investigation finds that the building contained a lab, and that certain chemicals within that lab were allowed to combine and happened to be near a heat source, thus causing the explosion (scientific explanation).

Now if we were to believe that science and religion were mutualy exclusive, then I could not possibly be responsible in any way for the explosion simply because a scientific explanation exists. What you miss is the posibility that I did in fact cause the explosion by mixing those chemicals. Or maybe they were already mixed and all I had to do was turn up the heat.

God doesn't have to beat his fist on the earth and announce his presence in a booming voice to make a miracle happen. He can just nudge a rock or something. The way I see it, the world is God's Rube Goldberg Machine. Gets the job done and effectivly hides his presence. Its like what "God" said on Futurama, "When you've done something right, people aren't sure you've done anything at all."

[Graav Wolfsong]

Monkey pull lever, monkey get banana!

:surprise: Banana!*ahem* And where is this lever you speak of?

[SaroDarksbane]

Its like what "God" said on Futurama, "When you've done something right, people aren't sure you've done anything at all."
Haha, I was thinking that through your whole post. Nice to see you included it.

[Andarcel]

This argument won't end. If science does manage to explain something that was previously unexplainable (and credited to God), then something else that is unexplained will then be credited to God. Until science can explain everything, it won't win.

I just don't understand why people think that just because we can't understand something means that some omnipotent power did it. Maybe, just maybe, we as a species aren't smart enough to figure some stuff out?

Now I know AoA is going to say something about God and love and all that, but it seems to me that for us to think we could even begin to comprehend God's will is crazy.
Unless you show that there's something that can never be explained by science, no matter how far it advances. Which was my argument about organization on that thread way back.

Here's another one for ya. How could science explain the fact that you, Booms, have experiences? Nothing in all of science even hints at a faint promise of a future explanation for this fact. It can describe with great accuracy how chemicals are interacting and electrical impulses moving and how different configurations will, by the laws of chemistry, biology, and physics cause you to behave in different ways, but it can't describe why any of this feels the way it does. It can tell you all about the fequency of a beam of light, how it beaks down a molecule in your retina and send an electrical impulse to be interpreted in your visual cortex, but it can't tell you what green looks like. Green could just as easily look like red. In fact, what you se as green may be what I see as red, ands we've just both learned to call it by the same name.

n short, science can't tell you why we aren't just cleverly constructed machines, extremely complex but ultimately capable only of behavior, not of experience. The entire capacity to feel, so at odds with everything we observe about the universe, so perfectly and eternally inexplicable by science, is the strongest argument for a God who decided to have creatures as well as matter, souls as well as bodies.

[Bhs Crew]

Well it could be that it can be explained scientifically, we just haven't yet figured out how.

Anyway we know that humans evolved from something more primitive as we can trace it back. If intelligent design were true wouldn't all species have to have started at the beginning of the earth when everything was created?

[Booms]

ID's argument (this is what I got from the article, anyways) is that we as creatures are too complex for evolution to explain us. By too complex I mean how there are so many amino acids, DNA strands, etc, and that the mechanisms of evolution aren't advanced enough (good enough) to account for how complicated we are. Therefore, either God or aliens must have played a part in creating us.

And I wouldn't be surprised if we did find a way to scientifically account for experiences, we just haven't gotten to a point where we can do that yet.

[Andarcel]

1)No, it really can't. Science can delineate the circumstances in whcih experience arises and address what sorts of experiences arise in a given situation, but that's all. The ultimate sources of experience are not material, and therefore cannot be examined.

To put it another way: all science examines behavior; that's how it gets its data. Experience is forever beyond its reach.

ID does not argue against all evolution; it instead argues that evolution must have received a number of helpful pushes along its path. So no, it's not "creationism in disguise," fond though some are of applying that label. At least, if it is, it has more in common with evolutionary theory than what most of us would think of as creationism (earth 6,000 years old, all species arose simultaneously, etc.)

[Bhs Crew]

Well does it explain what helpfull pushes are?

[Booms]

1)No, it really can't. Science can delineate the circumstances in whcih experience arises and address what sorts of experiences arise in a given situation, but that's all. The ultimate sources of experience are not material, and therefore cannot be examined.

To put it another way: all science examines behavior; that's how it gets its data. Experience is forever beyond its reach.

And you know this how? "Forever beyond its reach" is a very bold statement.

[Andarcel]

And you know this how? "Forever beyond its reach" is a very bold statement.
I've answered this in several different ways already, but I'll try once more in as much detail as I can muster

Let us suppose someone develops a Theory of Experience. He or she discovers that certain formations of molecules give rise to an organism that experiences. There is much rejoicing, until someone points out that this is not an explanation of experience, merely a description of when it arises.

A second aspiring young sentientist fiddles some more and develops a new theory: these formations create a hitherto unknown substance, Experiencium. This substance is what permits experience. again, much rejoicing, until someone observes that this is not an explanation. Experiencium could just as easily give rise to combustion as experience. Why does it produce experience? And once again, all are puzzled.

Each theory developed, however accurately it describes experience, where it comes from and how it can be created, will not be able to explain the fact of experience.

A scientist cannot tell you why there is energy and matter, although he may understand its interactions perfectly. A scientist cannot tell you why there is space and time, although she may be able describe their permutations with unerring accuracy. And a scientist cannot tell you why there is experience, although he may be able to say exactly when and where and of what kind it will be.

All these things are first principles. Science is based on them, it requires them, but it cannot explain them. The ignorant may think this is a failure of science, one that may someday be overcome, but those who understand the logic and method of science know that some principles in any theory must be Givens, which themselves have no explanation; they simply give rise to explanations for other things.

Science cannot tell you why the universe is the way it is; it could have been completely different in every respect. It could have consisted of nothing but light, or it could have been made out of four elements, or it could have been a single point particle with a single force. They can only describe exactly how the universe is, not why it isn't what it might have been.

Now, how do I know that experience is one of these Givens, that it can't be explained under a theory of matter? I'm not sure how to explain this if you don't immediately see that experience is so alien to matter that the two can never be logically united, only associated. I'll make an effort,though. It would be liking trying to make a theory that explained apples and triangles, or sunlight and freedom. It would be trying to make a theory that explains why green looks the way it does based on the nature of the visual cortex. Such a theory is doomed to failure, because as I've already said we know that green could have looked like any color at all, and in fact to different people, people with identical brain structures, may actually look like different colors. The matter could be identical, but the experience would not be. Thus, no theory could require experience of matter; experience could be completely removed from the universe, and any theory of matter would be left entirely unaffected. Thus, experience is one of the fundamental principles whose existence cannot be explained, only described.

Bhs - no. They could be miraculous mutations or aliens tinkering with DNA.

[Bhs Crew]

Why does it matter that science can't explain certain things. It isn't as if religion can explain them either, so I figure we just drop them.

Anyway back to the discussion, if ID has no theory on what these helpful pushes are how does it make it anything but modified evolution? What exactly gives this theory any clout without a mechanism to explain new species developing?

[Booms]

Okay, I think I get what you're saying.

Science can't explain why there is matter...essentially we cannot explain why there is existence to being with.

On the other hand, it seems to me that you could say that the universe, matter, space, time, experience, are just there (they have no reason for existing) just easily as you could say there is an omnipotent power watching over us.

Either way, ID doesn't deal with "why." If it's true that "ID's core scientific principles - laid out in the mid-1990's by a biochemist and a mathematicion - have been thoroughly dismissed on the grounds that Darwin's theories can account for complexity, that ID relies on misunderstandings of evolution and flimsy probablility calculations, and that it proposes no testable explanations," it seems to me that ID has no place in schools and is just another attempt to get God back into the classroom.

[Andarcel]

NOW we're making progress. An intelligent agency with a desire for creations that could feel and think, in other words creatures made in its image, would create such a world, and is thus a good explanation of why this world exists.

You are not, of course, logically bound to accept that explanation. But go back a few posts to the start of the argument, which is the notion that religion is simply a repository for things science can't explain. If every time we think we've found something that only God explains science develops a natural explanation, then the thinking man realizes that probably everything we attribute to God is really just science waiting to be done. That being the case, God vanishes from nature.

My whole argument isn't that you have to accept God (although I think a unvierse of hinking, feeling beings is so fantastically (read: infinitely) improbable that God is the only reasonable answer). The point is that ultimately the line of reasoning that science will ultimately crowd God out completely must fail. There are some things for which science can never offer an explanation, but religion can, Bhs.

ID is not a theory in a normal scientific sense. It's an attempt to establish a flaw in existing theories.

[Bhs Crew]

The explanation being "God did it."

The best part about it is that it is completely flawless and impossible to disprove.
Man, I wish all of us had such a simple, one-size-fits-all answer to life.

[Semidi]

(my quote thing just sends me to an white page telling me I won a free Ipod)

"Man, I wish all of us had such a simple, one-size-fits-all answer to life."


It's called "God wants it to be."

[Coltaine]

A scientist cannot tell you why there is energy and matter, although he may understand its interactions perfectly. A scientist cannot tell you why there is space and time, although she may be able describe their permutations with unerring accuracy. And a scientist cannot tell you why there is experience, although he may be able to say exactly when and where and of what kind it will be.


Science can't tell you why the earth is round or why there aren't mountains over 10km. Science can't tell you why complex molecules form and why they stay together.

Even if science could explain everything wouldn't it be valid to say God made it that way? Why shouldn'T God create the universe so, that eventually men can explain everything? Would He have to cheat and make his presence known?
As i understand it you destroy faith if you prove God. Because you can'T belive in a fact. You KNOW a fact. And what fun would religion be if we know that it is right?

[Graav Wolfsong]

The religious people on this forum have posted frequently and at length in their defense. The atheists have never bothered with anything but brief sputterings. I'm tired of it. If you want to call religion mass hysteria or the opiate of the masses or whatever Marxist crap you want, have the decency to include some evidence.

Oh, well excuse me for not having the time nor the patience to write up big posts thouroughly explaining my point of view to people set in their ways and opinions who could not care less in order to debate something that will never be settled. :uhhuh:
I'm not very happy about the bloated intellectual masturbation some people are oh so fond of indulging in on this forum.

If you do not care for simple oneliner comments, ignore them, don't whine up a storm.

Besides, I believe the issue of religion being mass-hysteria would be a rather long debate on the intricate workings of the human mind and relative reality. Place an idea and watch it grow kinda thing.


There are some things for which science can never offer an explanation, but religion can, Bhs.

It is an unsatifactory explanation. "It's God's will" is impossible to prove or disprove. It is based on belief and assumptions. Belief in God, wich is based on the assumption that there must be a God and that he created our existence because we don't know of any other way it could have happened.

And as far as I'm concerned, that is an irrational assumption.

Mankind has resorted to the notion of 'God' in some way or other to explain the things we do not understand ever since the most primitive of cavemen worshipping the flame.

Really, you'd think we'd be past that nonsense by now.

"Gods will" is simply an easy fix solution to tack on an arbitrary explanation to that wich we have no real explanation for.
When we don't understand something, we resort to "It's the work of God", because it's easer than face the fact that there are massive unknowns in the world we cannot explain and may never understand. I'm sorry, but that does not work for me.

Considering how massive the universe is, we are simply a mathematical probability. Essentially, ID attributes the successful mutations in evolution to some miracle of God's doing. Attributing evolution to God makes little sense when you think about the number of failed mutations that occur before a successful one comes around and a species evolve. An omnipotent being would not fail so many times before he gets it right.

Religious people will say I blind myself from the 'truth'. (A 'truth' that cannot be proved or disproved) I say religious people just attribute things to God in order to to better deal with everyday life. People believe because they want to believe, because they find some measure of comfort in the thought of God or whatever. It's like reading a bedtime story to a child on a massive scale.

[publius]

Wow. I'm trying to understand what Intelligent Design is, but all I get is creationism under another euphemism, or a weak attempt to back up the bible's version of the events with pseudo-science.

It seems like the majority of the arguments of the creationists against science is that it "fails to adequately explain natural phenomenom", whereas the Bible does. To me, this touches upon the biggest difference between science and religion. Science does not claim to be a complete work, whereas the Bible does. Ask any scientist today whether we know everthing there is to know, and almost every one will say that we know barely a drop in the bucket. Ask a creationist, and that person will say "yes we do", and hand you their copy of the "encyclopedia of everything", titled the Holy Bible.

I'm biased of couse, biased towards the area that has the better way of fact checking. Scientists are constantly working towards learning more, and the fear of getting things wrong permeates everything. To publish a journal, a scientist has to show data or evidence that what they are claiming is true. Furthermore, each paper is carefully scrutinized by peer review, each experiment duplicated in other labs, specifically so that no wrong information is added to the sum of human knowledge. In addition, it is very common for existing beliefs that have been held for ages to be replaced by newer ones in the face of newer evidence.

However, to be a creationist calls on one to forgo all of the above, to assume that things are too "complex" to be understood, and therefore claim that we do understand everything, namely that a higher deity created everything.

Science is not out to kill religion. Unfortunately there are times when the two contradict.

Science can't tell you why the earth is round or why there aren't mountains over 10km. Science can't tell you why complex molecules form and why they stay together.

Actually it can.

[Pietoro]

The Bible doesn't claim to be a complete work, -fundamentalists- claim it to be. The Bible is a religious document, it has nothing to do with science, nor does it claim to answer the nitty-gritty molecular-level physics of the universe, though some may claim that 'all you need to know' is in it.

The creationist science sites I've been to never claim 'so and so is too complex to understand, just take our word for it that God says its so' ...usually they just have differing interpretations of universally known data, based around their hypothesis of intelligent design.

And personally, calling a group you disagree with/think are ignorant 'evil' smacks too much of demagoguery to me. Once you accuse someone of being totally devoid of anything redeeming, you basically dehumanize and devalue them, which opens the doors for bigotry. Its rhetoric I find very offensive, frankly.

These people think their ideas have scientific merit -- deluded or not, they are not 'evil', the most you can accuse them of is being misguided and ignorant.

[publius]

The Bible doesn't claim to be a complete work, -fundamentalists- claim it to be. The Bible is a religious document, it has nothing to do with science, nor does it claim to answer the nitty-gritty molecular-level physics of the universe, though some may claim that 'all you need to know' is in it.

Oh yeah, that's probably an important distinction.

[Andarcel]

The explanation being "God did it."

The best part about it is that it is completely flawless and impossible to disprove.
Man, I wish all of us had such a simple, one-size-fits-all answer to life.
Nothing can be proven. All knowledge is a guess. Religion is hardly alone in this dilemma.

An easy answer? EASY? Man, you have a different take on religion than I do.

Oh, well excuse me for not having the time nor the patience to write up big posts thouroughly explaining my point of view to people set in their ways and opinions who could not care less in order to debate something that will never be settled.
I'm not very happy about the bloated intellectual masturbation some people are oh so fond of indulging in on this forum.

If you do not care for simple oneliner comments, ignore them, don't whine up a storm.

If you don't care for whining, ignore it, don't whine up a storm.

If your purpose isn't to pursuade, then the only alternative reason I see is to offend. So kindly excuse me if I get offended.

Thinking is often called intellectual masturbation by people who don't like doing it. It's only true if the thinking doesn't inform anyone. Since, as I near as I can tell, Booms at least has though about the world in however slightly a different way, and I have clarified a lot of what I thought to myself, it seems to have actually accomplished something. Which is more than I can say for your emotional masturbation, unless, again, your point was to be crude and offensive.

Why the hell shouldn't we consider the "workings of the human mind?" Are you really that disinterested in trying to figure out whether you're right or wrong? Seem to me that after the amount of time religious people here have spent examining their opinions, you're in one hell of a crappy position to try and accuse them of mental laziness.

Since I just finished a whole lot of lengthy intellectual maturbation on the topic of God as an explanation for the unknown, I don't really see any point in repeating it all.

The comfort of God pales next to the sheer terror. The only thing more frightening than God's love would be God's hatred. Many people understandably prefer a simple, orderly universe in which we don't have to worry about anything except vast cosmic indifference.

Some people may have turned religion into a bedtime story. If so, I guarantee you they know nothing about its essence.

Coltaine, I think you missed my point, which is pretty similar to yours.

ID people do argue for the existence of God, and that argument is not scientific. Science by definition looks for natural causes. That does not make it irrational or logically unsound; science is a tool, not the be-all and end-all of thought.

So, if we can clear that out of the way, here's how I understand the state of ID right now (based on a lecture by someone admittedly fevrently opposed to it). ID people demonstrated some structures that appeared to have irreducible complexity. Evolutionists showed how many of them are built of components that have separate uses, and therefore could easily have evolved. they have not actually shown this to be the case with all these complex structures, but the trend is obvious. So we can pretty much dismiss it for now, although I should point out that it had at least the virtue of developing the theory of evolution a bit further.

Unless some biologists want to get in here and debate the specifics, I think that's about as far as we can get with ID.

[Ologg]

The explanation being "God did it."

The best part about it is that it is completely flawless and impossible to disprove.
Man, I wish all of us had such a simple, one-size-fits-all answer to life.

I keep telling you, god didn't do it, it was me! Jeez, now stop arguing about it. Also the secret to life is... Oh wait sorry brb phone.

Oh and Andarcel: The ID people are still a buncha tards, no matter how lenghty and well informed your post become.

[Andarcel]

I keep telling you, god didn't do it, it was me! Jeez, now stop arguing about it. Also the secret to life is... Oh wait sorry brb phone.

Oh and Andarcel: The ID people are still a buncha tards, no matter how lenghty and well informed your post become.
They're wrong, which is what I said. doesn't make them stupid. If you'd read said lengthy posts, you would have discovered that I wasn't advocating their position. Run along now.

[Bhs Crew]

Nothing can be proven. All knowledge is a guess. Religion is hardly alone in this dilemma.

An easy answer? EASY? Man, you have a different take on religion than I do.

Yup, that's why we disagree.

Basically our answer for everything we didn't know since the beginning of humans was "A god did it."

As we have learned more about the world we have found other explanations for many of those things we once attributed to gods. Now after all these years after that explanation turned out to be false time and time again, why would I still trust "God did it." as my answer for the unknown?

[publius]

So, if we can clear that out of the way, here's how I understand the state of ID right now (based on a lecture by someone admittedly fevrently opposed to it). ID people demonstrated some structures that appeared to have irreducible complexity. Evolutionists showed how many of them are built of components that have separate uses, and therefore could easily have evolved. they have not actually shown this to be the case with all these complex structures, but the trend is obvious. So we can pretty much dismiss it for now, although I should point out that it had at least the virtue of developing the theory of evolution a bit further.

Unless some biologists want to get in here and debate the specifics, I think that's about as far as we can get with ID.

I think we can do much better if the ID people can explain WHY those structures they found have irreducible complexity, and if those "evolutionists" can explain WHY those components could not easily have evolved.

Then, if all they have are certain situations, one can them explain why we can dismiss it for now, instead of trying to figure out why there are discrepancies. The answer to a scientific conflict is not to pretend it never happened.

[Ologg]

If you'd read said lengthy posts, you would have discovered that I...

ROFL, right, like I'm acctually read that.

Are you going to keep replying, everytime? It's lots of fun!

Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!

[Andarcel]

Yup, that's why we disagree.

Basically our answer for everything we didn't know since the beginning of humans was "A god did it."

As we have learned more about the world we have found other explanations for many of those things we once attributed to gods. Now after all these years after that explanation turned out to be false time and time again, why would I still trust "God did it." as my answer for the unknown?
Give me an alternative explanation, and I'll happily entertain it.

BTW, I think I should correct the assumption that the basis for believing in God historically has always been that God was an explanation of the unknown. This is, not to put too fine a point on it, a crock of ****. People only thought that God was responsible for lightning in so far as God was responsible for everything, and this view has not changed. It's part of the definition of "creator." The discovery of electricity did not shake anyone's faith. No one called Voltaire a heretic. If you look at the conflict between Church and Science, you'll note that it was always over theories that diminished the importance of humanity, not God.

If you'd gone up to someone in the ancient world and tried to tell them that the sun rising was proof of God's existence they would have laughed in your face. If you want to actually get a sense of what Medieval apologetics were like, try looking in Aquinas' Summa.

Ancient peoples knew that the universe ran on predictable rules, and also kne that this was not a de facto argument for God. So please don't tell me that you should distrust this explanation because it's been endlessly proved false. The last time a major religious claim was proved false was Evolution, and that's the sum total.

Ologg, did you actually roll on the floor? If so you, my friend, are in desperate need of entertainment. But I doubt you so much as cracked a smile. Of course I'll keep replying. If I let this thread lapse, God knows when something else interesting will come up. Ever since that epic dry spell, I'm determined to live for the moment. And it's interesting to see what will come out of your mouth. Besides, this way your post count might actually break 100 before WoW comes out. After release, people won't mistake you for some newb that only arrived after WoW went gold. See? Beneficial for all concerned.

Also, I'm the lone opposition on this thread, so it would pretty much wither and die if I stopped replying. Look what happens when pwrmonger leaves a thread, for example.

[Bhs Crew]

Post counts mean something? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

GG didn't have post counts for a year. Why do you think all of ours (Ologg's included) are so low?

[Andarcel]

ILM STILL doesn't have post counts. And I don't think GG posts should count, anyway :p

[Bhs Crew]

BTW, I think I should correct the assumption that the basis for believing in God historically has always been that God was an explanation of the unknown. This is, not to put too fine a point on it, a crock of ****. People only thought that God was responsible for lightning in so far as God was responsible for everything, and this view has not changed. It's part of the definition of "creator." The discovery of electricity did not shake anyone's faith. No one called Voltaire a heretic. If you look at the conflict between Church and Science, you'll note that it was always over theories that diminished the importance of humanity, not God.
If you'd gone up to someone in the ancient world and tried to tell them that the sun rising was proof of God's existence they would have laughed in your face.
Well I find that hard to believe, as people have often needed a reason to believe in gods. Gods had mountain tops as their homes and rode chariots across the sky. They were used to explain everything from the changing of the tides to the rain falling. It seems to me that these Gods were nothing but explanations for the unknown.

Ancient peoples knew that the universe ran on predictable rules, and also kne that this was not a de facto argument for God. So please don't tell me that you should distrust this explanation because it's been endlessly proved false. The last time a major religious claim was proved false was Evolution, and that's the sum total.
That's the one and only time religion has been bothered by science? The church excommunicated Galileo for his discoveries and I think he was vindicated in the end.

Anyway the existence of God would not necessitate the existence of religion. If God does exist it would still make religion quite unnecessary. I don't see why we need some high-ups telling people that they have to connect to God through them and that they can tell you what God believes.

Very few religions (both past and present) would fit with the idea of God being an all powerful creator that doesn't actually have an opinion about everything going on in this little world.

[Booms]

I guess that just means our posts are better than your posts. :p

[Booms]

Anyway the existence of God would not necessitate the existence of religion. If God does exist it would still make religion quite unnecessary. I don't see why we need some high-ups telling people that they have to connect to God through them and that they can tell you what God believes.

Very few religions (both past and present) would fit with the idea of God being an all powerful creator that doesn't actually have an opinion about everything going on in this little world.

w00t w00t, I was going to say something like that eventually.

[Andarcel]

Well I find that hard to believe, as people have often needed a reason to believe in gods. Gods had mountain tops as their homes and rode chariots across the sky. They were used to explain everything from the changing of the tides to the rain falling. It seems to me that these Gods were nothing but explanations for the unknown.

That's the one and only time religion has been bothered by science? The church excommunicated Galileo for his discoveries and I think he was vindicated in the end.

Anyway the existence of God would not necessitate the existence of religion. If God does exist it would still make religion quite unnecessary. I don't see why we need some high-ups telling people that they have to connect to God through them and that they can tell you what God believes.

Very few religions (both past and present) would fit with the idea of God being an all powerful creator that doesn't actually have an opinion about everything going on in this little world.
Wow, thank you all, I haven't had this much fun in the OTF in forever. (Yes, fun. Sad but true.)

That's the one and only time religion has been bothered by science? The church excommunicated Galileo for his discoveries and I think he was vindicated in the end. No! Lies, all lies!

I refer you to... me:
If you look at the conflict between Church and Science, you'll note that it was always over theories that diminished the importance of humanity, not God.

Believing that the sun is there because of a guy in a chariot is not the same as saying the eixstence of the sun is an argument for there being a guy in a chariot. I have never once seen a single recorded instance of someone using this kind of argument as it stands. Christianity certainly has never argued in this way. Using God as an explanation only works if there is no other plausible explanation. And the only case where such an argument has been shown scientifically to fail was Aquinas' observation that world just seems suspiciously convenient. Much of that fell to evolution, because we realized that we were adapted to the world, not it to us. Nonetheless, it still survives in the organization principle I laid out.

There it is. You can find it hard to believe or not, as you choose. But you appear to have this exaggerated view of the stupidity of the ancient world. Believe me, they understood logic as well as you do.

Your other two comments are basically self-refuting. If God DOES have an opinion about the world, (and since He made it, that seems reasonable) then it's a basis for religion, if for no other reason than to figure out what He thinks and, above all, what He intends to do about it.

Your complaint is really with organized religions. I feel no desire to refight that battle here.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Why do humans automatically assume that everything has a beginning, end and purpose, or cause?


Do you automatically assume this?


Those are all subjective terms created by humans in order to sort out the world we perceive.


Cool, what is the origin of terms, language, and concepts, and what is the origin of the desire to "sort things out"? There is no escape.


We see the world in a linear fashion in time, hence we assume everything has to follow those rules somehow, eg. the universe has a beginning or an end. Rather isn't possible that the universe just simply IS?


Monkey pull lever, monkey get banana!

In a state of absolute "isness", there is no distinguishible monkey, bananna, or anything else. All definiton, motion, causality, even thought, is completely simple and actual - in essence, all is one, and nothing at the same time.



Booms - Since you "lost interest", why jump back in and ignore the last argument? If you truly want to seek out this matter, it may be more helpful to pick up things where you left off, and also refrain from sweeping dogmatic statements such as you asserted at the beginning.


Pietoro - Concerning the Bible as not a "complete" text. The last few lines of the book of Revelation speak of its completeness as a text for its intended purpose.

Whomever else - It's late and I'm tired. :yawn:

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Well I find that hard to believe, as people have often needed a reason to believe in gods. Gods had mountain tops as their homes and rode chariots across the sky. They were used to explain everything from the changing of the tides to the rain falling. It seems to me that these Gods were nothing but explanations for the unknown.


Actually, after seeing this, I have to stay up and post lol.. I'll start by pointing you in the direction of the base need to ascribe anything unknown to a God. That very desire right there should be indicitive of a truth. Your desires and natural makeup will help point out things that aren't discovered by means of the analytic method.


That's the one and only time religion has been bothered by science? The church excommunicated Galileo for his discoveries and I think he was vindicated in the end.


In the case with both science and religion, both are in a state of maturing. As we are now more advanced in science, so too, will we be more enlightened in terms of religion. Needless to say, there were many churchmen who scorned the true faith because of corrupt cultural considerations in the middle ages. The recorded saints of that era however were stark in contrast to these people. Qualms of religion and science were not "per se" authentic, but rather due to an aspect of ignorance on one side, or both - as we've seen with the galileo aspect. These were not fundamental tenets of the faith, but rather a failure to adhere to the maxims of reason by church proponents.


Anyway the existence of God would not necessitate the existence of religion. If God does exist it would still make religion quite unnecessary. I don't see why we need some high-ups telling people that they have to connect to God through them and that they can tell you what God believes.


You could not be more wrong. There will always be religion, just a matter of what form. Religion is indicitive of a certain social structure. Raw human existence demands structure, as it is composed of structure. The "what kind" of structure stems from the necessity and importance of the "knowledge of God" and its effects on the human being. The emergine culture, or "the religion" stems from the interplay of all these respective subjects.


Very few religions (both past and present) would fit with the idea of God being an all powerful creator that doesn't actually have an opinion about everything going on in this little world.

This assumes God's inactivity and/or lack of concern for the world. This is flawed by means of existential considerations, if nothing else.

[Coltaine]

Coltaine, I think you missed my point, which is pretty similar to yours.


How that?
All along the way i gathered that you said, intelligent design (or the unexplainable things call it what you want) is a proof for some omnipotent power that created it all. Because of the complexety of it all. Am I right so far?
I say, why has an omnipotent power to leave clues to its existance? The Power would make itself known which would kinda destroy faith.
You don't go around saying "I belive in the power of the pen. It can be used to write things and for that i worthship it."
You say: "A pen is something i can use to comfortably make notes."

Also if you were not joking you belive that it is clear, that not everything can be explained by science. I don't see it that way. It could be that not everything is explainable, but so far I see more hints that we could eventualy reach the point of explaining all encountered effects.

As i said before the method of Intelligent design ends the scientific progress.
You showed us that why there is matter can not be explained. Neither why there is light. So all these crackhead physics that right know try to find that out better stop now. they wont find anything right?
Its the same with the earth. We know it is the center of the universe and our System naturally. God would make it that way. So pleasy mister Galileo stop here. you waste you time. You might still want to measure and predict the movement of planets but if you can't incorperate that in the system that earth is the center, its another proof for the existance of God. He controls the movement.

So our 'logical arguments' might at some point be similar, but as far as i gather, we reach different conclusion.
Sure i said, God might made it all. But that is impossible to disprove or prove (well at least if He didn't want us to know for sure).

[Unreg!stered]

I'm not too terribly thrilled with that ID website, but I do essentially reach the same conclusion they do (aside from orginizational differences). I believe in evolution, there is evidence to support this, however, having studied how systems work both chemically and biologically for years it's quite amazing how complex these systems are. It's from this incredible complexity and near perfection towards whatever niche an organism occupies that I draw my belief that there is some sort of divine creator. I don't necessarily buy the ID's reason of "divine pushes" in evolution because there have been evolutionary failures (weeded out through natural selection ;) ). I do believe that it would probably take some sort of divine influence to create whatever seed or cell began the whole trend of evolution on a world perfectly distanced from a sun complete with a wonderful and versatile molecule known as water.

Don't confuse my belief in a creator with organized religion, though. I've never been a part of one because I've seen what man does with something as important as religion when it provides him power, plus, I've never been comfortable with the idea of a middleman between me and my God, although I certainly respect other people's choices to follow such. Organized religions just aren't for me. :)

One quick note to address the slight tangent the thread has taken: while I may be wrong I see science and religion both as a path to understanding. Science progresses to understanding through knowledge utilizing facts and data. Religion progresses to understanding through faith and belief. Both help reach the same end, but they are not mutually exculsive, in fact I've found more often than not science helps reinforce my beliefs. That's not to say the way I go about processing these things is right, though. Everyone has their own way of organizing and understanding things. Some people use knowledge and reason to define their world, some use faith and belief; some, like me, use both, and of course there are always those that use neither, however I can't tell you which path to understanding is right or wrong for you, I can only say what is right or wrong for me. Just like we all are unique in our personalities, in the way we look and act, we are unique in how we discover and understand our lives and our place in this world.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

I've never been comfortable with the idea of a middleman between me and my God.

THis statement is inaccurate. To the modern man, it appears that a social hierarchy is indicitive of a person's identity. If union with God were subject to rank and structure among humans, it could be said that God loves some more than others, or that there are some who could get closer to God than others, which is inaccurate. If that were the case, there attribute of mutibility could be assigned to the Godhead, and this cannot be due to the simplicity and oneness of God. Organized religion is for "everyone", simply because everyone lives "in" the world, with its manyfold social strata and dynamics.

Some would say they are "spiritual but not religious". These people are deceived. They too are religious, in accord with statutes that they feel themselves to be comfortable with. However, they are unrealistic in their religion, as one must discover their place among the whole, not be a whole unto themselves. The goal is not to assert one's path, but to discover it in the world. Hence, being part of the organization etc keeps one from self deceit.

[TheDagdaMor145]

Your other two comments are basically self-refuting. If God DOES have an opinion about the world, (and since He made it, that seems reasonable) then it's a basis for religion, if for no other reason than to figure out what He thinks and, above all, what He intends to do about it.

i found this statement here to be quite interesting for the simple question: does He have what we would consider an opinion?

the statement made me recall the writings of a contemporary philosopher (whom i forget the name of, but i will look up if you like) who was discussing some of the inconsistencies of kant. ( :scared: *shifts away from aoa*). the guy started talking about tautology, blah blah blah, and long story short he made the interesting point that an all-knowing being would have no need for tautology because whatever the being thinks would have to be true. which seems to hold true for the idea of an opinion. if God is all-knowing, then He would not have opinions because He would simply always be correct.

the defintion of an opinion being: "A belief or conclusion held with confidence but not substantiated by positive knowledge or proof"

bah, then you get into the debate whether God is all-knowing, all-powerful, etc etc etc. i was just rambling. someone get this thread back on topic.

cheers :drink:

[AgeOfAbnegation]

i found this statement here to be quite interesting for the simple question: does He have what we would consider an opinion?

the statement made me recall the writings of a contemporary philosopher (whom i forget the name of, but i will look up if you like) who was discussing some of the inconsistencies of kant. ( :scared: *shifts away from aoa*).


No contemporary philosopher has done (nor ever could) blame Kant for inconsistency. Kant's work involved discovering limits, and the structure of his arguments were flawless. Kant is the quintessential modern philosopher, and I'd say likey the most honest due to his method. There were only a few detractors of Kant this century (there were none before that) - Derridas, Foucault, and Horkeimer & Adorno. THey did not detract from Kant however in terms of consistency however, but asserted a new method, that simply overlooks Kant's work. THese people were fools and poets, not philosophers.



the guy started talking about tautology, blah blah blah, and long story short he made the interesting point that an all-knowing being would have no need for tautology because whatever the being thinks would have to be true. which seems to hold true for the idea of an opinion. if God is all-knowing, then He would not have opinions because He would simply always be correct.


THinking is done by composite beings like humans. Thought is an activity of composing and division, which demands an intellect that derives sensibles and concepts. God transcends these principles, there are no concepts in God. Hence, the Godhead can be described as eternal thought, and also, eternal will, which allows for a single, structured reality to be selected over another kind.

[TheDagdaMor145]

:lol: i knew i should have put a disclamer on my post saying that i do not always believe in things that i write. anyways, thats nice and all, but what does that have to do with my post?

andarcel posted that God probably had opinions about what He had created, and i was merely pointing out how that might not be correct. in short, all i said was that God would have no need for opinions if He was always correct anyways.

having no need to derive concepts, as well as being eternal thought and eternal will sounds very much like there is no need for Him to have opinions.

[Andarcel]

Alrighty then!

Coltaine:
Misunderstood you. The nature of Christian faith is not belief in God's existence, it is trust in God's purpose. Faith in God is like faith in anyone else - it means that you trust them even if the immediate evidence suggests that rationally you shouldn't.

I'm not convinced that God could build a world that left no traces of divinity. Even if He could, there has to be some starting point for belief. Faith only applies once one accepts God's existence on other grounds.

Dagda:
Whether God can have opinions hinges on whether you accept divine command theory. If you do, then God must have opinions not based on fact because the facts of morality consist solely of God's opinions. For example, God opines that having a world is better than not having one, that love is better than hatred, etc. If, however, you think that standards of good exist independently of God, then God's will simply conforms to these standards and thus He has no opinions.

In practical terms, God still has intentions towards the world, and we therefore still have incentives to discover them.

[Unreg!stered]

THis statement is inaccurate. To the modern man, it appears that a social hierarchy is indicitive of a person's identity. If union with God were subject to rank and structure among humans, it could be said that God loves some more than others, or that there are some who could get closer to God than others, which is inaccurate. If that were the case, there attribute of mutibility could be assigned to the Godhead, and this cannot be due to the simplicity and oneness of God. Organized religion is for "everyone", simply because everyone lives "in" the world, with its manyfold social strata and dynamics.

Some would say they are "spiritual but not religious". These people are deceived. They too are religious, in accord with statutes that they feel themselves to be comfortable with. However, they are unrealistic in their religion, as one must discover their place among the whole, not be a whole unto themselves. The goal is not to assert one's path, but to discover it in the world. Hence, being part of the organization etc keeps one from self deceit.

The quotation you used from my post was in reference to catholicism in which there essentially is a middle man between one and their god. You don't confess your sins directly, you instead confess them to a priest as well as there being a Pope who is the embodiment of Christ on earth (or something along those lines, it's been awhile, someone feel free to correct me if I'm wrong).

Your reasons for why there could not be a social hierarchy of man in relationship with God is why I don't ascribe to Catholicism, however, your last statement "Organized religion is for "everyone", simply because everyone lives "in" the world, with its manyfold social strata and dynamics" is only correct if you believe that there is one true God and that we are all under his blessing whether or not we believe in any one particular faith. What I meant by organized religion (and what many others mean when they say that) is the particular sects i.e. Protestants, Catholics, Muslims, etc. Organized religion is going to a set place listening to the same preacher and believing the same things as everyone else of that particular faith. Yes people are organized, and yes there is religion, that does not mean just being makes you are a part of an organized religion unless you extend your definition to a much larger scale. My definition was the common one where organized religion meant a sect, a church, a synagogue.

Your last paragraph is interesting to say the least. There is nothing wrong with individuality or "asserting" one's path in the world. Some people need to "break the mold" to find out who they are and what their place in the world is. You cannot expect everyone to take the word of a book or a preacher as gospel simply because it is there, they have to go out and experience things for themselves. Sometimes to discover who you really are you have to be something you are not. Sometimes you have to take the wrong road to find the right one. Just as I'm sure you had to do some research, some experiencing, some pondering before you reached your religious conclusions so must everyone else. Being "spiritual but not religious" is a step along the road, sure in a broad definition it is bet of an oxymoron but its a stop along the path a lot of people take before proceeding onward and learning more. Also, a lot of people who say they are "spiritual but not religious" are again referring to the idea that they don't belong to an organized religion (using the common definition of the term, not the broad one) yet they still believe in a God. The word "religion" has a lot of negative implications many just do not want to be associated with and I can understand the differentiation in people's minds between it and "spirituality."

[Eiger]

Haha, I guess my title (and link titles) were psuedo-trolls, but I had fun with them. Besides, evil is a subjective term; what may be evil to me may not be to you.

And Andarcel? The word you were looking for was 'knowledgeable,' not 'intelligent'.
Umm, I'd go back to "intelligent". I'm not thinking knowledgeable works so well. Intelligent people just have brains that process information quickly and efficiently. But brains are like computers, you put garbage in and you get garbage out. This ID stuff is just the latest creationism spin, no more no less.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

The quotation you used from my post was in reference to catholicism in which there essentially is a middle man between one and their god. You don't confess your sins directly, you instead confess them to a priest as well as there being a Pope who is the embodiment of Christ on earth (or something along those lines, it's been awhile, someone feel free to correct me if I'm wrong).


All christians are embodiments of CHrist on earth to the extent that they participate in the divine life in the Holy SPirit. In confession, one does directly confess to God, but in and through the network that has been precipitated by God for our benefit.



Your reasons for why there could not be a social hierarchy of man in relationship with God is why I don't ascribe to Catholicism, however, your last statement "Organized religion is for "everyone", simply because everyone lives "in" the world, with its manyfold social strata and dynamics" is only correct if you believe that there is one true God and that we are all under his blessing whether or not we believe in any one particular faith.


THe statement was concerning the natural order, and does not depend on creed.


What I meant by organized religion (and what many others mean when they say that) is the particular sects i.e. Protestants, Catholics, Muslims, etc. Organized religion is going to a set place listening to the same preacher and believing the same things as everyone else of that particular faith. Yes people are organized, and yes there is religion, that does not mean just being makes you are a part of an organized religion unless you extend your definition to a much larger scale. My definition was the common one where organized religion meant a sect, a church, a synagogue.


A person has a choice to willingly be integrated or not to be. THose who are not are a religion unto themselves. All will participate in some manner of structure, but to follow God most closely is to be integrated into the structure he initiated.


Your last paragraph is interesting to say the least. There is nothing wrong with individuality or "asserting" one's path in the world. Some people need to "break the mold" to find out who they are and what their place in the world is.


I thank you for softening the text with the term "interesting". Discovery and assertion are not at odds, but to assert within the framework of discovery is what's at stake. Discovery is being assertive and honest, moving forward. THis differs from creating a self-styled brand of truth.


You cannot expect everyone to take the word of a book or a preacher as gospel simply because it is there, they have to go out and experience things for themselves. Sometimes to discover who you really are you have to be something you are not. Sometimes you have to take the wrong road to find the right one. Just as I'm sure you had to do some research, some experiencing, some pondering before you reached your religious conclusions so must everyone else.


Your argument here is not a detraction from my post, but a fulfillment, only insofar as the intent of a person is honest. YOu'll find that's the case with some of the posters here, and not with others. As Cassirer put it, reason, when adhered to correctly, will lead one back to the truth. Only desire and honesty are prerequisites, and "being yourself" is also a key requirement ;).


Being "spiritual but not religious" is a step along the road, sure in a broad definition it is bet of an oxymoron but its a stop along the path a lot of people take before proceeding onward and learning more. Also, a lot of people who say they are "spiritual but not religious" are again referring to the idea that they don't belong to an organized religion (using the common definition of the term, not the broad one) yet they still believe in a God. The word "religion" has a lot of negative implications many just do not want to be associated with and I can understand the differentiation in people's minds between it and "spirituality."

THe key here is to mature simply beyond emoting.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

andarcel posted that God probably had opinions about what He had created, and i was merely pointing out how that might not be correct. in short, all i said was that God would have no need for opinions if He was always correct anyways.


Opinion is indicitive of a position not fully "filled in" by knowledge and or reason. THere is no opinion, only truth that is discovered. God does not have opinion, as that would imply an alternative. THere is no alternative.

[Bhs Crew]

This assumes God's inactivity and/or lack of concern for the world. This is flawed by means of existential considerations, if nothing else.

Well if god is an all powerful creative force that exists throughout time (as you have said before) then I can't see it caring particularly as to whether Gays marry, or who is elected president on this little planet. The force is busy creating, not playing politics.

[Unreg!stered]

All christians are embodiments of CHrist on earth to the extent that they participate in the divine life in the Holy SPirit. In confession, one does directly confess to God, but in and through the network that has been precipitated by God for our benefit.


The person you are confessing to is also human and therefore flawed. Who's to say the intentions of a priest are pure? Also there are some things that are better left between a person and their god rather than told to an intermediary. This is a point where our beliefs will differ and while I know you're not a fan of compromise or "agreeing to disagree" I don't think this is something we'll really agree on. :)


He statement was concerning the natural order, and does not depend on creed.
Natural order based on the religious foundation of man supreme over nature rather than man as a part of nature.

A person has a choice to willingly be integrated or not to be. THose who are not are a religion unto themselves. All will participate in some manner of structure, but to follow God most closely is to be integrated into the structure he initiated.

It, of course, is up for debate which structure is the one God itself initiated. Was it the way the Christians described or the Muslims? Or perhaps the Jewish system? Mayhaps Hinduism is the right way, we simply don't know. We can believe in one over the other, however, as many of us do. You believe that the structure you participate in is correct, some believe there's is correct, and I'm on the sideline still deciding. However do be careful, because stating a correct structure or "right way" to be closest to God creates a hierarchy of closeness which you argued could not exist.

I thank you for softening the text with the term "interesting". Discovery and assertion are not at odds, but to assert within the framework of discovery is what's at stake. Discovery is being assertive and honest, moving forward. THis differs from creating a self-styled brand of truth.

Your argument here is not a detraction from my post, but a fulfillment, only insofar as the intent of a person is honest. YOu'll find that's the case with some of the posters here, and not with others. As Cassirer put it, reason, when adhered to correctly, will lead one back to the truth. Only desire and honesty are prerequisites, and "being yourself" is also a key requirement .

It was not my intention to soften the text, I did find it interesting. :D I never argued that discovery and assertion were at odds but rather assertion can help lead to discovery. From the initial post I responded to it seemed as if you said assertion was wrong, but you've since clarified it to be "assertion without purpose of discovery" which is much better because it is more accurate. I think we can both agree that there's nothing wrong with asserting oneself to help discover where you're going. :)

THe key here is to mature simply beyond emoting.

And that is the hardest part. We naturally respond to things via our emotions first, rational thought second. It's a tough step to make to put aside emotions in favor of rational thought. I know I still have yet to completely make that step and only a very few people I know have.

I don't think we necessarily disagree on anything, AoA, we're just at different points along a path. You're farther down than I am, though, but if the path you took is the right one I'll find my way there in time. :)

(Triple Edit: Ok I think its right and in the clear order now....)

[Andarcel]

Well if god is an all powerful creative force that exists throughout time (as you have said before) then I can't see it caring particularly as to whether Gays marry, or who is elected president on this little planet. The force is busy creating, not playing politics.
If God had a limited amount of attention, that might be true. As it is, God cares about everything. Not a sparrow falls, etc.

[Bhs Crew]

Believing that the sun is there because of a guy in a chariot is not the same as saying the existence of the sun is an argument for there being a guy in a chariot. I have never once seen a single recorded instance of someone using this kind of argument as it stands. Christianity certainly has never argued in this way. Using God as an explanation only works if there is no other plausible explanation. And the only case where such an argument has been shown scientifically to fail was Aquinas' observation that world just seems suspiciously convenient.
Well many people would believe that the gods were doing these things because there was no other explanation for it happening. People dancing for rain or sacrificing a sheep to get a good harvest is them believing that these things depend on the gods. By the same token you know the gods exist because these things depend on them and without them how would it happen.

I would say that they believe the gods existed because that's what they were taught and all the unexplained things in the world only reinforce that belief.


There it is. You can find it hard to believe or not, as you choose. But you appear to have this exaggerated view of the stupidity of the ancient world. Believe me, they understood logic as well as you do.
I don't think they were stupid at all. If I was taught that the gods made it rain and it didn't rain cause we displeased them I would believe it. If I know nothing about air currents or pressure systems I would not doubt that the good harvest was because of our sacrifices and the gods' happiness. This isn't stupidity; it's just what makes sense at the time.

This also isn't to say they aren't logical. Obviously, as shown as far back as the Greeks, these people were in no shortage of logic.


Your other two comments are basically self-refuting. If God DOES have an opinion about the world, (and since He made it, that seems reasonable) then it's a basis for religion, if for no other reason than to figure out what He thinks and, above all, what He intends to do about it.
Well actually if God is a creative force that creates rather than manages, it seems more reasonable to say God has no opinion about what we do with the world. God does not seem to interfere with his creations after they are made meaning that God probably doesn't really care what a few animals on one of its tiny planets does.

Your complaint is really with organized religions. I feel no desire to refight that battle here.
Well that's no fun.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Well if god is an all powerful creative force that exists throughout time (as you have said before) then I can't see it caring particularly as to whether Gays marry, or who is elected president on this little planet. The force is busy creating, not playing politics.

Force is inaccurate. But to directly answer you, the politics are written in the natural world, and in the human heart. The correct ordering of love in a human heart will precipitate the medicine the world needs to flourish. Failure to adhere to this brings the problems people whine about. THe flaw in their understanding is to create the solution, rather than discover it.

[Bhs Crew]

Force is inaccurate. But to directly answer you, the politics are written in the natural world, and in the human heart. The correct ordering of love in a human heart will precipitate the medicine the world needs to flourish. Failure to adhere to this brings the problems people whine about. THe flaw in their understanding is to create the solution, rather than discover it.
Yeah my first answer was phrased badly.

While I don't disagree that there are certain things people do that make the world work better I wouldn't say that is because that's what God wants to happen. God seem to create rather than manage so I can't see God caring one way or the other. An all powerful force has no need to. We have existed in a tiny sliver of time and God's creations will exist long after we are no more.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

The person you are confessing to is also human and therefore flawed. Who's to say the intentions of a priest are pure?


The condition of the human administering the sacrament are irrelevant. There will always be "flaws" in humanity, but its in these flaws that we can have reference to a perfection. The confessor still confesses to God, the priest acts as a mere sounding board, while prophetically speaking a reality that has already taken place - the forgiveness of all mankind. The key to confession is "re-entry" into a previously established reality.


Also there are some things that are better left between a person and their god rather than told to an intermediary. This is a point where our beliefs will differ and while I know you're not a fan of compromise or "agreeing to disagree" I don't think this is something we'll really agree on.


Others cant live our lives for us, or our own relationships to God, but the forgiveness of sins not only is a reconciliation with God, but also with the body of Christ, the people, to whom our actions affect.


Natural order based on the religious foundation of man supreme over nature rather than man as a part of nature.


According to whom? Man is both part of nature, or "in" the world (best described by maurice merleau-ponty. But he is also "above" other things in the world according to the hierarchy of perfections, which you assented to in your reference to flaws. Stewardship is a good word to describe it.


It, of course, is up for debate which structure is the one God itself initiated. Was it the way the Christians described or the Muslims? Or perhaps the Jewish system? Mayhaps Hinduism is the right way, we simply don't know. We can believe in one over the other, however, as many of us do. You believe that the structure you participate in is correct, some believe there's is correct, and I'm on the sideline still deciding. However do be careful, because stating a correct structure or "right way" to be closest to God creates a hierarchy of closeness which you argued could not exist.


THis is easier to sort out than may appear. A sacred text must ascribe as well to the demands of reason and metaphysics, which the Koran and other texts do not. THis can be discussed at length later if you wish.


It was not my intention to soften the text, I did find it interesting. I never argued that discovery and assertion were at odds but rather assertion can help lead to discovery. From the initial post I responded to it seemed as if you said assertion was wrong, but you've since clarified it to be "assertion without purpose of discovery" which is much better because it is more accurate. I think we can both agree that there's nothing wrong with asserting oneself to help discover where you're going.


Most certainly.



And that is the hardest part. We naturally respond to things via our emotions first, rational thought second. It's a tough step to make to put aside emotions in favor of rational thought. I know I still have yet to completely make that step and only a very few people I know have.

I don't think we necessarily disagree on anything, AoA, we're just at different points along a path. You're farther down than I am, though, but if the path you took is the right one I'll find my way there in time. :)

(Triple Edit: Ok I think its right and in the clear order now....)

Sounds good. :thumbsup:

[AgeOfAbnegation]

God seem to create rather than manage so I can't see God caring one way or the other.


THis part of your text is key. Each management is ordered to a specific end. WHat end do you have in mind? THe answer is in the incarnated Christ, who lived the same life we have in many respects, save for sin. THe Jews wanted a messiah who wanted to make everything "right". Is this your messiah? THis world is not our ultimate end. THe only things we can take with us is who we've become - our character and our works. Seeing the correct end of it all will galvanize your understanding of management.


An all powerful force has no need to. We have existed in a tiny sliver of time and God's creations will exist long after we are no more.

Again, your assertions are based on a ready-made sheer temporal existence. Attempts to answer a transcendental call without moving beyond empiricism to concepts is futile.

[Bhs Crew]

THis world is not our ultimate end. THe only things we can take with us is who we've become - our character and our works. Seeing the correct end of it all will galvanize your understanding of management.
Ah yes the "correct" end. I realize that there may be something after death and in that respect it will probably have made a difference how we lived our life. What exactly will happen I don't know.

Even if there is life after death it doesn't mean God actually cares what we do in this life. God could be creating endless planes of existance that we will walk, but that doesn't give it an opinion about whether or not Gays marry for example.


Again, your assertions are based on a ready-made sheer temporal existence. Attempts to answer a transcendental call without moving beyond empiricism to concepts is futile.
It may be. I will live this life and when it is over I will see what comes next. Each one I plan to live as I go making the best choices based on the information I have. There is no point in me spending this life endlessly planning for an unknown. There are so many different options on what could happen next.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Ah yes the "correct" end. I realize that there may be something after death and in that respect it will probably have made a difference how we lived our life. What exactly will happen I don't know.


If I were you, I would take this question very seriously. Don't play games with eternal destiny - you're worth more than that. Apathy simply is not an option.


Even if there is life after death it doesn't mean God actually cares what we do in this life. God could be creating endless planes of existance that we will walk, but that doesn't give it an opinion about whether or not Gays marry for example.


At the simplest level, God must at least be aware of the goings on, by means of our continued existence. THe next level is an examination of natural laws and tendencies in the human person. That gives reference to the nature of creatures God created us to be. It follows from that, coupled with an examination of the created reality, that God's will can be uncovered more perfectly. THat comes even before revelation comes into the picture. Social and moral issues like those you made reference to can be solved in reference to the preceeding foundations.


It may be. I will live this life and when it is over I will see what comes next. Each one I plan to live as I go making the best choices based on the information I have. There is no point in me spending this life endlessly planning for an unknown. There are so many different options on what could happen next.

THere is no room for "may be", and acting on a "may be" is inherently problematic. Your notion, which sadly is shared by the masses, of "finding out later" is a marriage to mediocrity, and a denial of your higher faculties as a human being. It's your call. There is only one way it can go down, laws of the temporal world demand it.

[Bhs Crew]

Well that we will just have to see.

I do take this seriously it is more than likely that the next step isn't an eternal destiny. The inevitability of change seems to be one of the natural laws of this universe.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Eternal destiny isn't the "next step", its being lived out now as I made reference to before - we are "becoming" in this world. CHange is part of that, but there is NOTHING that is random. The only randomness comes in your own understanding. Once you start to study logic and ways of reason more, this will be more clear.

[Andarcel]

Well many people would believe that the gods were doing these things because there was no other explanation for it happening. People dancing for rain or sacrificing a sheep to get a good harvest is them believing that these things depend on the gods. By the same token you know the gods exist because these things depend on them and without them how would it happen.

I would say that they believe the gods existed because that's what they were taught and all the unexplained things in the world only reinforce that belief.


I don't think they were stupid at all. If I was taught that the gods made it rain and it didn't rain cause we displeased them I would believe it. If I know nothing about air currents or pressure systems I would not doubt that the good harvest was because of our sacrifices and the gods' happiness. This isn't stupidity; it's just what makes sense at the time.

This also isn't to say they aren't logical. Obviously, as shown as far back as the Greeks, these people were in no shortage of logic.


Well actually if God is a creative force that creates rather than manages, it seems more reasonable to say God has no opinion about what we do with the world. God does not seem to interfere with his creations after they are made meaning that God probably doesn't really care what a few animals on one of its tiny planets does.

Well that's no fun.
Ancient people had no prolem with having God and natural causes as explanations. The lightnign was caused by a storm, and also because God got mad. The two were not exclusive. Never have been, never will be. So the notion that a natural explanation precludes God is a uniquely modern misconception, much as the notion that ancient people turned to God because they had no other explanation.

So, basically what you say amounts to "it was easier to believe in God before science." Ok. That seems historically reasonable. Kind of leaves your original demand to know why you should believe in an explanation so often proved wrong a little threadbare, though, doesn't it?

[Bhs Crew]

My original demand wasn't a very good argument.

AoA- I'm not talking about randomness as everything has some cause to it.

I'm talking about the unknown. I don't know what will happen to me after I die and all the logic in the world will still produce only a guess.
If I live this life fully and happily that will prepare me well enough for whatever comes next, and I'll cross that bridge when I come to it.

If there is something after I die, then that allows me more time to change and adapt. Nothing is set in stone and I can always change to fit my situation.

[ratbert]

And that is the hardest part. We naturally respond to things via our emotions first, rational thought second. It's a tough step to make to put aside emotions in favor of rational thought. I know I still have yet to completely make that step and only a very few people I know have.

If you think putting your emotions aside is difficult, what do you think remaining human will be when you feel nothing?

By experience I would say that there is only one emotion that you should strive to rid yourself of, and that is fear; all 'bad' emotions are born from fear, and we would do well to overcome it, but as far as the rest are concerned, they are tools you would do yourself great harm if you threw away like useless garbage. But seeing as you believ in 'man in nature' rather than 'man above nature' you were probably never intent on leaving your animal heritage for a 'purer' existence anyway.

So why do I put my head into this bee hive? I'm confident in the power of reason, and I know how emotions can lead the mind a stray, still I itch all over when I hear people proclamate the superiority of reason above emotions, because I know from first hand experience the tremendous hurt you can suffer if you choose by reason alone and take no head of emotions. To me, it is impossible to put emotions and intelect on anything else than equal level, side by side, but I need to better understand their relationship. In this your replys would be helpfull to me.
I'm trying to come up with an example related to this thread, and what I think of is AoA's way to often use our yearning for a god as an indicator of god's existence; clearly this is a way to use emotions to direct the reason towards it's goal that is to understand god. This is what I mean, emotion and reason working together.
Still my reasoning doesn't come to the same conclusion as his, which I would contribute to a different emotional starting point. I think that we all are very biased by our emotional make-up, even if some people manage to configure it after their own needs and purposes, ie not be a victim of emotional circumstance, yet most of us are not aware of this, and no one is completely aware.

I know that some people would feel greatly offended by this my discrediting of their intelectual efforts and conclusions. But as long as different people comes up with different descriptions of what a loving god is like, then I must believe that their individual apprahension of love has lead their inquery to where it ended. In being consious of this, I am no greater than them, but at least I'm not fooling my self. I know some would say I'm the only fool. :lol: I rest my case.

[Andarcel]

My original demand wasn't a very good argument.

AoA- I'm not talking about randomness as everything has some cause to it.

I'm talking about the unknown. I don't know what will happen to me after I die and all the logic in the world will still produce only a guess.
If I live this life fully and happily that will prepare me well enough for whatever comes next, and I'll cross that bridge when I come to it.

If there is something after I die, then that allows me more time to change and adapt. Nothing is set in stone and I can always change to fit my situation.
Unless what comes after death is extemporal, in which case you will have no time at all.

[Booms]

Just so you all know, I'm not attempting to drop out of this argument, but I have 30 posts to read, so it might be a while before I reply.

[Bhs Crew]

Unless what comes after death is extemporal, in which case you will have no time at all.
Very true. Well I've taken this topic about as far as I can. As usual my views changed a lot as I had to address them and figure out why I believe what I do (in politics we call that a flip-flop). That made it an excellent discussion, but I'm ending it on my end and focusing on the second amendment and the presidential election (topics where we're both on the same side).

[Unreg!stered]

If you think putting your emotions aside is difficult, what do you think remaining human will be when you feel nothing?

By experience I would say that there is only one emotion that you should strive to rid yourself of, and that is fear; all 'bad' emotions are born from fear, and we would do well to overcome it, but as far as the rest are concerned, they are tools you would do yourself great harm if you threw away like useless garbage. But seeing as you believ in 'man in nature' rather than 'man above nature' you were probably never intent on leaving your animal heritage for a 'purer' existence anyway.


Perhaps I should have been clearer, I'm not saying Reason only, but rather Reason first. Emotions have a very important place in our lives, it is what makes us human, however, it should not dominate one's faculties. Neither reason nor emotion should be the lone way one determines and reacts to things, however most people (myself included) use emotions as our first reaction. For example, when someone criticizes my work my emotions tell me to get angry and often times I do. However, if I were to reasonably think it out I'd see they weren't criticizing to be an ***, they were trying to help make my work better. As you said, the best emotion to try and rid oneself of is fear but even that has its uses. It's just when you only use emotion when things get bad, which is what I meant to refer to but didn't quite say. :D

A life with no emotions though...well you aren't living then. If I ever get to the point where I feel no emotions and thus cannot feel love then I hope someone will be compassionate enough to shoot me.

Also, I am working to purify or perfect myself as a human, but that doesn't neccessarily remove myself from nature, at least in my mind. Fundamentally I have much in common with the animals, even the plants, fungi, Protists, Bacteria and Archaea, my desire to not have the base instincts dominate my thoughts doesn't put me above them, though.

So why do I put my head into this bee hive? I'm confident in the power of reason, and I know how emotions can lead the mind a stray, still I itch all over when I hear people proclamate the superiority of reason above emotions, because I know from first hand experience the tremendous hurt you can suffer if you choose by reason alone and take no head of emotions. To me, it is impossible to put emotions and intelect on anything else than equal level, side by side, but I need to better understand their relationship. In this your replys would be helpfull to me.

Precisely, emotions can lead us astray if they dominate our thoughts (unless of course, in terms of love for another person when I willingly surrender myself to emotional bliss). However, the other extreme is just as bad where reason only dominates us. Equality is not neccessarily the term I would use to relate them, but rather, in some situations it is better to use more reason and less (but never none at all) emotions, and in other situations its better to use emotions rather than reason. :) Well, I guess that can be considered equal, just as long as equality doesn't mean equal weight in every single situation. :lol:

I know that some people would feel greatly offended by this my discrediting of their intelectual efforts and conclusions. But as long as different people comes up with different descriptions of what a loving god is like, then I must believe that their individual apprahension of love has lead their inquery to where it ended. In being consious of this, I am no greater than them, but at least I'm not fooling my self. I know some would say I'm the only fool. I rest my case.

You're no fool, you just have arrived to a different location based on what you've seen and experienced then I have, and I know I'm in no position to say which way is wrong or right. Perhaps I'm right, perhaps you're right, perhaps we're both right. To me, that's the beauty of these discussions. Aside from extremism there is no real wrong side just different locations based on unique experiences. :) I think of it sort of like walking around in a circle. I'm at one point, you're at another point, AoA is at yet another point, yet we are all on the same circle walking around taking in what's there and trying to understand what this life is all about.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

My original demand wasn't a very good argument.

AoA- I'm not talking about randomness as everything has some cause to it.

I'm talking about the unknown. I don't know what will happen to me after I die and all the logic in the world will still produce only a guess.
If I live this life fully and happily that will prepare me well enough for whatever comes next, and I'll cross that bridge when I come to it.

If there is something after I die, then that allows me more time to change and adapt. Nothing is set in stone and I can always change to fit my situation.


This uncertainty you attest to is what I'm trying to steer you away from. In my work, I discuss how the human being is incapable of knowing what is beyond it, but that a "tunnel" can be discovered that will lead to the only possible solution. By means of reason and its aids, in time there really is only one possible conclusion - there is only one thinking, when taken to its ultimate end. It's not guesswork. Guesswork would deny even the immutible structure of reasonong you would employ to arrive at that conclusion. Yet, the path has more steps that can be hindered by suspension of judgment or a weak spirit. Everything IS set in stone, but its form must be ascertained.

[Bhs Crew]

So what happens after death?

[AgeOfAbnegation]

there is no real wrong side just different locations based on unique experiences

The first part of that sentance can be rendered folly by means of an expansion of the second - experiences must also be processed. Reason goes beyond simple sensations into universals.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

So what happens after death?

The post-modern atmosphere desires, if not demands, a fast food answer, and a quick solution to that which is beyond our faculties. Yet in accord with what I said earlier about the guiding path of reason, we can attest to an incorporeal aspect of humanity - our minds - as well as our desires for the transcendentals, and happiness. These demand an origin outside the simple world of temporal causality, motion and matter. It would suggest a separation from our earthly bodies, to start with. This can be understood from reason. Revelation can meet reason here and offer more insight. Aquinas has written some texts on this - first part of the summa theologica. Aristotle's DeAnima may also be of assistance.

[Bhs Crew]

So we're separate from our bodies; I kind of figured that already. So we got a spirit and our body is quite unlivable. The question is what happens next?

[AgeOfAbnegation]

No, we are not separate from our bodies. That was Descartes' mistake. THere is no mind/body dualism, as it would render our lower faculties useless from the higer. Humans are a composite being of corporeal and incorporeal. If our bodies were simply hosts, there would be no line of demarcation between the sensible corporeal and the incorporeal essence - we would not learn from our 5 senses. All knowledge starts from the senses, and is processed by the "agent intellect", which composes and divides this data, forming concepts. Further thought is possible by composing and dividing these concepts in turn.

As such, this gives assent to a resurrected body, and also to a state of existence without a body, where the mystics discuss sensation only to be "infused" by the Godhead. Humans could not be omnipotent or omnipresent after death because of the state of being before death, since a body is needed for the understanding.

Gotta hit the sack :p

[Unreg!stered]

The first part of that sentance can be rendered folly by means of an expansion of the second - experiences must also be processed. Reason goes beyond simple sensations into universals.

Yes but as long as you follow reason even misteps can be correct as long as the end result is the same. For example, to get to the grocery store from my house you can either take a left turn and then a right, or a right turn and then a left. The two routes are different yet the destination is the same. Neither is right nor wrong they are just different paths to the same end.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

THat helps a bit more. From this I would agree that different subjects, starting from different areas, throught the use of reason, would end up at the same destination.

[Sage the Mage]

This uncertainty you attest to is what I'm trying to steer you away from. In my work, I discuss how the human being is incapable of knowing what is beyond it, but that a "tunnel" can be discovered that will lead to the only possible solution. By means of reason and its aids, in time there really is only one possible conclusion - there is only one thinking, when taken to its ultimate end. It's not guesswork. Guesswork would deny even the immutible structure of reasonong you would employ to arrive at that conclusion. Yet, the path has more steps that can be hindered by suspension of judgment or a weak spirit. Everything IS set in stone, but its form must be ascertained.

If there's this ultimate truth and its unreachable, even the slightest bit, then its still an unknown. The absolute best you can do, in fact, is guess.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Options are singificantly reduced, even to the narrow margin of only one possible conclusion, drawing from what "is". There is no guesswork involved, only for the fool and the skeptic (which go hand in hand).

[Bhs Crew]

Options are singificantly reduced, even to the narrow margin of only one possible conclusion, drawing from what "is". There is no guesswork involved, only for the fool and the skeptic (which go hand in hand).
And here I thought the fool goes hand in hand with the person who thinks they know the unknown. Shows what I know.

Anyway what I meant before is that we are seperate from our bodies after death. So what happens next? What is the one true answer that leaves no room for error?

[Sage the Mage]

Options are singificantly reduced, even to the narrow margin of only one possible conclusion, drawing from what "is". There is no guesswork involved, only for the fool and the skeptic (which go hand in hand).

If there's only one possible conclusion then you must already know what that conclusion is, so its not unknown or unobtainable.

[Andarcel]

And here I thought the fool goes hand in hand with the person who thinks they know the unknown. Shows what I know.

Anyway what I meant before is that we are seperate from our bodies after death. So what happens next? What is the one true answer that leaves no room for error?
There are no answers with no possible margin for error. There is nothing in which we could not be mistaken.

[Bhs Crew]

There are no answers with no possible margin for error. There is nothing in which we could not be mistaken.

Options are singificantly reduced, even to the narrow margin of only one possible conclusion, drawing from what "is". There is no guesswork involved, only for the fool and the skeptic (which go hand in hand).
Not according to him. That's why I'm asking.

[Booms]

Wired got the article (http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.10/evolution.html?tw=wn_tophead_8) up on their website.

I think I've given up on trying to jump back into the conversation...you all post waaay to fast.

[Andarcel]

Not according to him. That's why I'm asking.
I believe he means that probabilities converge on a single answer, and thus there is only one rational. Doesn't mean it's infallible

[Bhs Crew]

I believe he means that probabilities converge on a single answer, and thus there is only one rational. Doesn't mean it's infallible
Oh very well. I still want to know what he thinks it is though.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

If there's only one possible conclusion then you must already know what that conclusion is, so its not unknown or unobtainable.

No. I'll offer the example of what happened to usher in modern thought. The pre-moderns, especially the medieval scholastics posited that we contain the object perceived in our senses - like we posess the form of a can of coke in our mind by means of our eyesight. Descartes' buddies came around and said - no, we dont really contain it because we dont fully know it. Indeed, we cant see the microscopic particles of a can of coke, or truly know its full attributed by means of the naked eye. THus, he threw out this previous understanding. He erred. Essentially, we can have knowlede that it is indeed a can, and not something else, but without knowing its full properties. THis is like the way it is with transcendental things. We can perceive what it is not, but not what it fully is. However, what it is not, also tells us what it is.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Oh very well. I still want to know what he thinks it is though.

Rational and infallible.. I'd say my reply to Sage offers some help. The rational is by nature infallible in what it is intended to do. There are greater means of perceiving, but reason follows laws and guidelines. In some cases, reason will lead one to know its own limits, but this, ironically, is a universal.

[Andarcel]

Rational and infallible.. I'd say my reply to Sage offers some help. The rational is by nature infallible in what it is intended to do. There are greater means of perceiving, but reason follows laws and guidelines. In some cases, reason will lead one to know its own limits, but this, ironically, is a universal.
There are no synthetic statements that could not be wrong. All real facts are fallible.

[Sage the Mage]

No. I'll offer the example of what happened to usher in modern thought. The pre-moderns, especially the medieval scholastics posited that we contain the object perceived in our senses - like we posess the form of a can of coke in our mind by means of our eyesight. Descartes' buddies came around and said - no, we dont really contain it because we dont fully know it. Indeed, we cant see the microscopic particles of a can of coke, or truly know its full attributed by means of the naked eye. THus, he threw out this previous understanding. He erred. Essentially, we can have knowlede that it is indeed a can, and not something else, but without knowing its full properties. THis is like the way it is with transcendental things. We can perceive what it is not, but not what it fully is. However, what it is not, also tells us what it is.

What you are speaking of is a guess based on evidence, its still unknown what it is though.

[Bhs Crew]

Rational and infallible.. I'd say my reply to Sage offers some help. The rational is by nature infallible in what it is intended to do. There are greater means of perceiving, but reason follows laws and guidelines. In some cases, reason will lead one to know its own limits, but this, ironically, is a universal.
Fine. So what happens after death?

[AgeOfAbnegation]

I would caution you Bhs not to take an all or nothing approach to your methodology. You would assert that because perfect knowledge of what is beyond death is unaccessable to us, that we can have no certain understanding. The problem with this age is that it uses the analytic method to discuss the transcendental, and when that fails, they throw out the idea of universals altogether. Thus, that needed to be said before I would say "we dont know" by means of reason alone. However, the "we dont know" is spoken in terms of an analytic method that you pose yout question with. By analysis, we simply do not know what happens after death. You'd be a fool to close the case at that however.

After the analysis of sense data comes the analytic of concepts, which point us unerringly towards available options for the transcendental, which, by means of this process of discovery, are singled out to a very narrow margin, which is absolute and universal. What you and most others have to come to terms with is your identity as a human being trying to apprehend the cosmos, which will speak of your abilities and limitiations as that subject. Your demand for a simple cut and paste answer suprised me Bhs, you have shown some promise lately.

[Bhs Crew]

Your inability to give me a clear answer surprised me, AoA, for you usually have one.

If it is true that you don't know to the extent that you can give me a clear answer of what happens after we die, then how do you know how to prepare for what happens after death?

Then I decided to summarize to clarify my understanding and make sure we were on the same page, which led to the overly long post below.

[Bhs Crew]

Here's the problem. I start with my assessment of my best option for dealing with the afterlife.
It may be. I will live this life and when it is over I will see what comes next. Each one I plan to live as I go making the best choices based on the information I have. There is no point in me spending this life endlessly planning for an unknown. There are so many different options on what could happen next.

So you tell me that my mistake is assuming that what happens after death is an unknown.
If I were you, I would take this question very seriously. Don't play games with eternal destiny - you're worth more than that. Apathy simply is not an option.

There is no room for "may be", and acting on a "may be" is inherently problematic. Your notion, which sadly is shared by the masses, of "finding out later" is a marriage to mediocrity, and a denial of your higher faculties as a human being. It's your call. There is only one way it can go down, laws of the temporal world demand it.
You tell me that I shouldn't play games with my eternal destiny meaning that whatever happens you are sure that my eternal destiny depends on what I do in this life. It is important that I prepare now.

So I respond that as long as what happens after I die is not known, and I have time to change things after death, then there's no problem.

I'm talking about the unknown. I don't know what will happen to me after I die and all the logic in the world will still produce only a guess.
If I live this life fully and happily that will prepare me well enough for whatever comes next, and I'll cross that bridge when I come to it.

If there is something after I die, then that allows me more time to change and adapt. Nothing is set in stone and I can always change to fit my situation.

So you proceed to tell me that I can come to only one solution and only one possible conclusion.
This uncertainty you attest to is what I'm trying to steer you away from. In my work, I discuss how the human being is incapable of knowing what is beyond it, but that a "tunnel" can be discovered that will lead to the only possible solution. By means of reason and its aids, in time there really is only one possible conclusion - there is only one thinking, when taken to its ultimate end. It's not guesswork. Guesswork would deny even the immutable structure of reasoning you would employ to arrive at that conclusion. Yet, the path has more steps that can be hindered by suspension of judgment or a weak spirit. Everything IS set in stone, but its form must be ascertained.
Basically there is something after death and while we can't truly know what it is for sure, we can be almost absolutely certain of what it is. Also unless I read this wrong, you're saying that I have to prepare before I die, because that will be what determines what happens next. (I can't just wait and see.)

So I ask you the question:
So what happens after death?
And you give me part of the answer
Yet in accord with what I said earlier about the guiding path of reason, we can attest to an incorporeal aspect of humanity - our minds - as well as our desires for the transcendentals, and happiness. These demand an origin outside the simple world of temporal causality, motion and matter. It would suggest a separation from our earthly bodies, to start with.

Finally you tell me...
Options are significantly reduced, even to the narrow margin of only one possible conclusion, drawing from what "is". There is no guesswork involved, only for the fool and the skeptic (which go hand in hand).

I ask you the question again hoping for more of an answer.
Fine. So what happens after death?
And you finally give me one. Almost.
Thus, that needed to be said before I would say "we don’t know" by means of reason alone. However, the "we don’t know" is spoken in terms of an analytic method that you pose your question with. By analysis, we simply do not know what happens after death. You'd be a fool to close the case at that however.
Then you tell me that despite the fact that you don't know, it is the purpose of humanity to try to find out.
What you and most others have to come to terms with is your identity as a human being trying to apprehend the cosmos, which will speak of your abilities and limitations as that subject.

Which brings me to my next questions.
"How do you know it's the purpose of humans to try to find out what is after death?"
And more importantly,
"How do you know that my solution of waiting and dealing with it when I come to it won't work?"

[Eiger]

Looks like this is finally getting interesting.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Progress in thinking asks patience and method. I'll try to be more clear however.


Which brings me to my next questions.
"How do you know it's the purpose of humans to try to find out what is after death?"


The purpose can be uncovered by means of our nature. All things progress to their ultimate end. Generation, corruption, movement - its the way things work in the world. Each "thing" consists of its own nature and/or structure. In that structure, we can discover its destiny. Destiny means in this case, a prediction of the future based on past and present, and reference to like things. In the human being, the notion of desire, which can be called thirst for happiness, etc. keys into this. Happiness is in accord with trancendental values, which include (if not embodied by) love. It's our nature to inquire, and the fact that we are restless about death, and have an incorporeal aspect (the incorporeal is imperishible as it is not subject to motion), demands an inquiry into existence beyond death. Indeed, part of our existence is in the eternal as we speak, throught our minds.
Why doesn't everyone seem to care? They do care, however skepticism and the weight of an intellectually dull culture has forced them to be sleepwalkers, only awakened by key events that reveal their own mortality - such as the death of a loved one, or a diagnosis of a terminal illness.


And more importantly,
"How do you know that my solution of waiting and dealing with it when I come to it won't work?"

A thing only works in accord with its end. What is it you intend to "do" by "making it work"? The key can be found in the above paragraph. In truth, we are living an eternal life right now. The line of demarcation between this world and a hereafter is only met by the corporeal aspect of the human. Thus, if it "does not work" for you now, it will not work then, either. Eternal life is "right now", as well as "after". If you choose to simply let it slide now, you'll slide in eternity.

[Bhs Crew]

The purpose can be uncovered by means of our nature. All things progress to their ultimate end. Generation, corruption, movement - its the way things work in the world. Each "thing" consists of its own nature and/or structure. In that structure, we can discover its destiny. Destiny means in this case, a prediction of the future based on past and present, and reference to like things. In the human being, the notion of desire, which can be called thirst for happiness, etc. keys into this. Happiness is in accord with trancendental values, which include (if not embodied by) love. It's our nature to inquire, and the fact that we are restless about death, and have an incorporeal aspect (the incorporeal is imperishible as it is not subject to motion), demands an inquiry into existence beyond death. Indeed, part of our existence is in the eternal as we speak, throught our minds.
Why doesn't everyone seem to care? They do care, however skepticism and the weight of an intellectually dull culture has forced them to be sleepwalkers, only awakened by key events that reveal their own mortality - such as the death of a loved one, or a diagnosis of a terminal illness.
Well I've lived through little but key events that reveal my own mortality so I doubt I've been sleepwalking too much. I realize I could die anytime and I know I’ll hit death eventually so I don’t see any point trying to figure out an answer I will know for certain soon enough.

A thing only works in accord with its end. What is it you intend to "do" by "making it work"? The key can be found in the above paragraph. In truth, we are living an eternal life right now. The line of demarcation between this world and a hereafter is only met by the corporeal aspect of the human. Thus, if it "does not work" for you now, it will not work then, either. Eternal life is "right now", as well as "after". If you choose to simply let it slide now, you'll slide in eternity.
Well that's good to hear. So far I have been living my life to work in the long term and if that long term is a little longer (as in endless) then I had originally thought it won't be a problem. I would be quite happy with any part of my personality/character being eternal as there’s no part of me I regret.

[Adamwsat]

A great book I jsut read, Hyperspace , covers this topic in one chapter or so.

This conflict is a result of the fact that an immense ammount of conditions are required for life to exist. One explanation is that this is from an Ultimate being designed the universe to allow for such life, yet the other, the one I believe in myself, is based upon scientific fact:

The reason our Universe exists in this way is because we are here to observe it. Basically this ties into paralell universes in which these requirements for life to exist may or may not be present. For example, in our universe the half-life of a proton is fairly close to the life of the universe itself under normal conditions, yet if it were to be 1 million years, then life could have never started, since life started as a slow process of random chance forming of molecules and such. After much time Amino Acids were formed, and after even more time this evolved into life. If the half-life of a proton were this low life would have never gotten to be an amino acid, none the less sentinent life.

This being said there are an infinite number of parallel universe where life may not be possible, the reason ours is significant is because we are here to observe it. This ties into quantum Physics, most notably Heisenberg's Uncertainty principal. The classic example of this is Schrodinger's Cat;
According to Heisenberg's uncertainty principal, which has been experimentally verified many times, "Position is determined, the less precisely the Momentum is known". Due to this if one measures wither value, the other one wil become unkown. Thusly, the unknown value is the sum of all possible values, each possbility existing, in theory, in a paralell universe. As Schrodinger said:

"One can even set up quite ridiculous cases. A cat is penned up in a steel chamber, along with the following diabolical device (which must be secured against direct interference by the cat): in a Geiger counter there is a tiny bit of radioactive substance, so small that perhaps in the course of one hour one of the atoms decays, but also, with equal probability, perhaps none; if it happens, the counter tube discharges and through a relay releases a hammer which shatters a small flask of hydrocyanic acid.

If one has left this entire system to itself for an hour, one would say that the cat still lives if meanwhile no atom has decayed. The first atomic decay would have poisoned it. The Psi function for the entire system would express this by having in it the living and the dead cat (pardon the expression) mixed or smeared out in equal parts."

The solution, as stated above by myself, is that in some Universes it is dead, and in some it is alive, which it is in our universe cannot be known without looking.

The effect of coincous in both this and the statement of Heisenberg's uncertainty principal, since knowing one value changes another, explains how sentinent life developed in our universe, for any universe in which we exist becomes our focal point, if this universe were not to be capable of supporting life then we would be in another, and since with even all of the possible variables there is still a chance, according once again to Heisenberg, that any event may happen.

In short, the universe we live in supports life because if it didn't we would be in a different universe and the universe that would be discussed would then support life, since statistically some ammount of universe capable of supporting life must exist.

Phew, long post; I doubt anyone is still reading....

[Sage the Mage]

Indeed, part of our existence is in the eternal as we speak, throught our minds.

You say existence for us is eternal, which must be beyond time. So no perception, no thought. Why should I care about being closer to God?

[AgeOfAbnegation]

I don't see your connection here between your first few sentances and being closer to God. In this life, we partake in both modalities. Our operations however like thinking, is done by means of sensation. Perception fails to be perception outside time and space. The only mode of knowing outside a body would have to be imbued knowledge, instilled by a higher being, or the Godhead.

[Bhs Crew]

I don't see your connection here between your first few sentances and being closer to God. In this life, we partake in both modalities. Our operations however like thinking, is done by means of sensation. Perception fails to be perception outside time and space. The only mode of knowing outside a body would have to be imbued knowledge, instilled by a higher being, or the Godhead.
Was that directed to me?


-Edit
Oh wait, never mind. It was directed at Sage.
What about me?

[Sage the Mage]

What about me?
Attention ***** :)

I don't see your connection here between your first few sentances and being closer to God. In this life, we partake in both modalities. Our operations however like thinking, is done by means of sensation. Perception fails to be perception outside time and space. The only mode of knowing outside a body would have to be imbued knowledge, instilled by a higher being, or the Godhead.

See heres the thing. I still don't care about myself in some eternal state if I cannot think. Lack of thought, lack of emotions. So what I do now has no difference at all in what happens to me in an afterlife. So, why should I care?

[Bhs Crew]

That's fine I was still looking for an answer from AoA though.

[Neelaus]

A new form of creationism is slowly gaining support throughout the nation, going by the name of "Intelligent Design." Wired Magazine has an article on in this month, but unforunately they don't post their magazine articles on their site (www.wired.com (http://www.wired.com) ) until the magazine has been out for a while.

Here are some links about the issue, one of them is pro-ID while the other is anti-ID (and correct). I only skimmed the two links (I need to head off to religious services pretty soon), but they both seem to represent their respective side well enough.

What the dumb people think. (http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/)
How the dumb people are wrong. (http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/nhmag.html)

You have alot of growing up to do, and in the mean time, stop making such degrading and insulting threads.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Bhs - It was in reply to Sage.



See heres the thing. I still don't care about myself in some eternal state if I cannot think. Lack of thought, lack of emotions. So what I do now has no difference at all in what happens to me in an afterlife. So, why should I care?


heh.. I was wondering where you got such a dreadful view of eternity? You made reference to a lifeless void, where I made reference to a different modality of perception without the physical senses. From what I gather, the acceptance of Christ on earth promises an eternal existence partaking in the devine benefits. Sounds good to me, as far as I can tell. Also, take note of the object of your desire. You would care because of..... What do you want?

[Sage the Mage]

Bleh answer Bhs and Adamwsat before you answer me again :P

heh.. I was wondering where you got such a dreadful view of eternity? You made reference to a lifeless void, where I made reference to a different modality of perception without the physical senses.

The only mode of knowing outside a body would have to be imbued knowledge, instilled by a higher being, or the Godhead.

You seem to be stating that you only have knowledge. Knowledge itself isn't all that useful, since you have no way of acessing it without thinking.

Also, take note of the object of your desire. You would care because of..... What do you want?

In the human being, the notion of desire, which can be called thirst for happiness, etc. keys into this.

I want to be happy, but you cannot be happy without thought.

[Neelaus]

See heres the thing. I still don't care about myself in some eternal state if I cannot think. Lack of thought, lack of emotions. So what I do now has no difference at all in what happens to me in an afterlife. So, why should I care?

Can you gauruntee you will have lack of thought? Lack of emotion?

What if you were very much alive in your spiritual essence, and had no other choice but to wander forever?

You seem to assume that you just fade away when your shell reaches the end of its lifespan.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Bleh answer Bhs and Adamwsat before you answer me again :P


Ok Mr. Troll O.o


You seem to be stating that you only have knowledge. Knowledge itself isn't all that useful, since you have no way of acessing it without thinking.


Knowledge is the product of thinking. Thinking is a necessity for us, but would be "imbued" in the case of a completely incorporeal entity, as I explained to Bhs.


I want to be happy, but you cannot be happy without thought.

Thought is only an operation, not the end.

[Bhs Crew]

Bleh answer Bhs and Adamwsat before you answer me again :P
Which for easy reference are posts 121 and 122 on the previous page.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Which for easy reference are posts 121 and 122 on the previous page.

Ahh. Well, I didnt find that either post warranted a reply. In your case, your post was not in the form of an argument, and really did not affirm or detract from my post, so I let it sit. The other post from adam sounded more like a confused opinion than anything else, and was just emblazoned on the thread, with no real reference to the preceeding arguments. I chose to ignore it as a result of the above, and also becuase I have already stated that muliplue universes cannot be possible - they would be the same universe.

[Bhs Crew]

Works for me.