Ye Religion Thread

[reaper]

you could assume that God has to be fine-tuned in order to be able to create universes.

[metaL]

my sole belief is that there must have been some outside entity facilitating the creation of the universe (multi-verse?), as opposed to shit "just happening".

[...]  perhaps some of you should think for once, instead of just going along with what some scientists say. oh wait, they can't teach common sense, guess some of you are out of luck

Clearly such an outside entity is too perfect to have "just happened".  It must have been created.  Obviously anyone who doesn't comprehend this is an idiot and is out of luck due to lack of common sense.

you didnt understand what i was saying, a common theme within this thread.    i'm done arguing, i'm only posting twice a day on this thing and i feel it is a waste of my time.

[quadz]

of course you can assume what you want, my point was whether or not he would need to be fined tuned would be beyond comprehension

And, so...?

[quadz]

my sole belief is that there must have been some outside entity facilitating the creation of the universe (multi-verse?), as opposed to shit "just happening".

you didnt understand what i was saying, a common theme within this thread.

Well, I can understand if you don't want to spend more time on this thread; but I'm puzzled at how I misunderstood what you were saying...?

I thought you were saying the universe we see is too complex to have happened accidentally, therefore some outside entity must have been involved.  No?

So I was countering that any such "outside entity" must also be too complex to have happened accidentally, etc.


Regards,

quadz

[[BTF]DeathStalker]

First of all, the creation of our Earth is fully comprehendible.
2 ways. 1. Spiritually: God made the Earth using 2. Scientifically: The Big Bang.
To me the spiritual and scientific understanding of how the Earth was made can easily coexist.

As far as the Universe, well, who the hell knows ??? I believe it's possible to comprehend it. We just don't have all the facts.

But the who made God question??? He had to come from somewhere, but I wouldn't even want to guess at that one. But I believe it to is comprehendible. Maybe not yet. Our don't think our minds have evolved enough to comprehend it, YET. Plus, we don't have all the facts there either.

But to put debating aside and speculation up front, I speculate that it's possible that God isn't alone of his kind. So who's to say he made the universe. Maybe others of his kind made the other parts that make up the Universe. What people need to understand about God is the fact that he is a spiritual being. Not in the religious sense but in the sense that he has no arms, legs or form or shape.
Quads, can help me describe this: I believe God is a form of pure intelligent energy, a life force.

On that note, why wouldn't it be possible for there to be others of his kind???

I see nowhere any of this would be UNcomprehendible.
We just need to know all the facts and have the intelligence to understand the facts.

Oh, and on a side note, God did make us in his own image. Not our face or looks, but our soul. A body of intelligent energy inhabiting our bodies.
When we die, our intelligence takes this form and leaves the body, hence our soul, or our life force.
And according to the bible, (and other religious books) that's when we'll be shown everything and everything will be made clear.

And also, when are you going to get a spell checker for this thing so I don

[DaHanG]

of course you can assume what you want, my point was whether or not he would need to be fined tuned would be beyond comprehension

And, so...?

  1. How was the universe created?
  2. It is "beyond comprehension", so let's say God did it.
  3. How was God created?
  4. Oh, that's "beyond comprehension" too.

If all you're doing is replacing the first "beyond comprehension" thing (creation of a universe), with a new "beyond comprehension" thing (existence of God), I really don't know why one would bother.  Why not just stick with the original "beyond comprehension" fact that the universe exists, and leave it at that?

I just don't see the point...


Regards,

quadz

this is not directed at reaper specifically, but i think part of this measuring of incomprehensible things - and choosing god (the far more complex one) is a result of human nature. god, even from the deistic perspective, is consoling. let's face it, humans are weak. one of the most revealing pieces of evidence is that many atrocities of the 20th century were a direct result of dogma (religious or not). we humans need to feel special and/or superior in some way not only to animals, but to one another. i forgot the exact figure, but it was well over 80% of americans that consider themselves "above average" (or better) as a general human being. this isn't surprising, but it's still humorous since if there was a fair self-analysis the figure would clearly be far closer to 50%.

the fact that a newseek poll reveals only 37% of america would vote for a perfectly qualified atheist presidential candidate tells me that yes, it's bad to lack belief. it seems that we humans are taught that faith - belief without evidence - is a virtue (indeed the less evidence there is, the more virtuous you are). faith almost by it's very nature demands pride in a particular belief - because of the abscence of evidence (or even contrary to). there may be a feeling of "it will be shown that my position is correct, perhaps not until after death, and i will be rewarded for my faith." (as presented by deathstalker above for example). this sort of optimistic state of mind is unshakable.

in reaper's case, the fact that the human race believes in god is probably a contributing factor in choosing highly complex beginnings over simple beginnings. it's evident here that he begins with the assumption that god exists, waiting for evidence to refute it (impossible):

since i believe in god, i'm going to need a reasonable explanation for the latter to change my belief.  also, it looks at this point, as though something is required to fine tune this universe.

the "beyond comprehension" problem quadz addresses is something that humankind makes synonomous with god. almost in a sense, as seemingly demonstrated by reaper, that "beyond comprehension = god".

[reaper]

in reaper's case, the fact that the human race believes in god is probably a contributing factor in choosing highly complex beginnings over simple beginnings. it's evident here that he begins with the assumption that god exists, waiting for evidence to refute it (impossible):

correct

however i don't think we know enough to say that matter/energy being there is less complex than god.  i'm not trying to to be antogonistic, or saying something i don't believe, i truly feel this way.  also i think i grasp the concept behind matter and energy always being there.  not the details of course, but the general idea.  stephen hawking proposed an idea that time would exist before the big bang, so there would be no need for a cause...
i think we are lacking some information to say that matter/energy just being there is possible, and we cannot describe enough of how this happens.  since the possibilities are so open and endless (where god could exists) i would need a lot of answers to change my belief.

the "beyond comprehension" problem quadz addresses is something that humankind makes synonomous with god. almost in a sense, as seemingly demonstrated by reaper, that "beyond comprehension = god".

yes, we were assuming there was a god, and god=beyond comprehension

[DaHanG]

i don't think we know enough[/u] to say that matter/energy being there is less complex than god. 

by definition we can either have simple beginnings or complex beginnings. if you start with a belief in god, it's almost impossible to change your mind. if you simply look at the two possibilities (simple vs complex beginnings), and leave all assumptions aside, one seems far more probable.

the "beyond comprehension" problem quadz addresses is something that humankind makes synonomous with god. almost in a sense, as seemingly demonstrated by reaper, that "beyond comprehension = god".

yes, we were assuming there was a god, and god=beyond comprehension

nobody disagrees that god is beyond comprehension. my point is that humans have a tendency to say that what is beyond comprehension must BE god. there's a difference and the latter seems intellectually dishonest.

[[BTF]DeathStalker]

it will be shown that my position is correct, perhaps not until after death, and i will be rewarded for my faith." (as presented by deathstalker above for example). this sort of optimistic state of mind is unshakable.

Very true, but i'm not going on faith alone. I'll have to research it and find the exact experiment when  I have more time, but there was an experiment back in the 30s i believe that showed that the soul has mass. Basically the experiment went like this, A man put on scales weighed something like a 1/2 gram or a gram less upon death.
Dieing and your soul going to heaven could actually be "Dieing and your life force ( your soul, a form of pure energy containing all that you know, all that you learned, and all that you are) being released from your body and thus being able to then evolve into a higher conciseness. A form not able to peacfully exist in this realm, dimension, whatever. So now you've evolved into this higher conciseness and move on into a new realm, dimension, whatever. There you will see able to see or even be shown everything with the evolved abilty now to comprehend it all.

Here is a question.
a few people here has quoted Hawkins. Well, according to all of those that study and know physics, even Hawkins, information CANNOT be lost, even in a black hole. So what about all the information in you when you die. Where does is go??? It's gota be somewhere???
Death is just a higher form of conciseness. You take all that knowledge and information with you. Your still alive, just in a better, more superior form.

So yes, it's faith and belief in God that makes me say that, but it is also something I believe that could be backed up by some form of scientific theory.

[reaper]

Well, according to all of those that study and know physics, even Hawkins, information CANNOT be lost, even in a black hole

when i delete a file on windows, it's not really gone, but i do think it can be lost : P

[quadz]

Death is just a higher form of conciseness.

  Conciseness, indeed. 

You take all that knowledge and information with you.

So the brain doesn't store knowledge and information?

Your still alive, just in a better, more superior form.

The sex is better?


Regards,

[Whirlingdervish]

I'd say, that after you reach a decent percentage of cell-death in your brain, the neurons that provided the pathways through which information flowed would no longer be effectively connected, and the information stored therein would, in fact, be lost forever.. It's not like we could clone you and download that information into another head, so what does it matter if it's gone when you die?

You certainly wont need it, and it's inaccessible to anyone else...

[DaHanG]

it will be shown that my position is correct, perhaps not until after death, and i will be rewarded for my faith." (as presented by deathstalker above for example). this sort of optimistic state of mind is unshakable.

Very true, but i'm not going on faith alone. I'll have to research it and find the exact experiment when  I have more time, but there was an experiment back in the 30s i believe that showed that the soul has mass. Basically the experiment went like this, A man put on scales weighed something like a 1/2 gram or a gram less upon death.
Dieing and your soul going to heaven could actually be "Dieing and your life force ( your soul, a form of pure energy containing all that you know, all that you learned, and all that you are) being released from your body and thus being able to then evolve into a higher conciseness. A form not able to peacfully exist in this realm, dimension, whatever. So now you've evolved into this higher conciseness and move on into a new realm, dimension, whatever. There you will see able to see or even be shown everything with the evolved abilty now to comprehend it all.

a very elementary scientific explanation for this phenomenon would be the complete expulsion of all gas within the human body (oxygen/nitrogen/carbon dioxide/methane/etc.) which certainly has mass. perhaps a heat release contributes. is this mass equivalent to that of a few dimes? i don't know. i assume experiments have been done but i have yet to research the findings.

the soul, by it's very definition, does not consist of mass - it is a spirit. i've heard of the phenomenon you're talking about, and a similar phenomenon occurs in sheep as well as other animals (do they all go to heaven, or is there a reasonable scientific explanation?), but the way you jump to your conclusion is strange because you have to alter the definition of soul from meta-physical to physical.

Here is a question.
a few people here has quoted Hawkins. Well, according to all of those that study and know physics, even Hawkins, information CANNOT be lost, even in a black hole. So what about all the information in you when you die. Where does is go??? It's gota be somewhere???
Death is just a higher form of conciseness. You take all that knowledge and information with you. Your still alive, just in a better, more superior form.

So yes, it's faith and belief in God that makes me say that, but it is also something I believe that could be backed up by some form of scientific theory.

i also find it humorous that you have completely misunderstood hawking's idea that information cannot be lost. this theory pertains to physical information.

[reaper]

by definition we can either have simple beginnings or complex beginnings. if you start with a belief in god, it's almost impossible to change your mind. if you simply look at the two possibilities (simple vs complex beginnings), and leave all assumptions aside, one seems far more probable.

since assumptions are aside,  the universe continues expanding, and stays in a pretty shitty state forever.  this is the only universe in existance, and that's the way it is.  the universe formed by extreme chance, and from something smaller than an atom the universe as we know it formed.  i guess you could just say it was an accident.

we do have a simple beggining

[DaHanG]

by definition we can either have simple beginnings or complex beginnings. if you start with a belief in god, it's almost impossible to change your mind. if you simply look at the two possibilities (simple vs complex beginnings), and leave all assumptions aside, one seems far more probable.

since assumptions are aside,  the universe continues expanding, and stays in a pretty shitty state forever.  this is the only universe in existance, and that's the way it is.  the universe formed by extreme chance, and from something smaller than an atom the universe as we know it formed.  i guess you could just say it was an accident.

we do have a simple beggining

why would you say assumptions are aside, then make nothing BUT assumptions?