Support NeoGAF

[Che]

blessed are those who have not seen, yet believed.

Ummmmm so the naive are blessed? I like that. I could even start a religion of my own with that. I could say I am THE god. Then they'll probably ask me for proof. I will say: "Blessed is the one who doesn't ask for proof." There I have it. A brand new religion of my own and noone can question my holyness.

 

[levious]

blessed are the Greek

 

[ToxicAdam]

Except that in this very thread I read your suggestion about the complexity of nature and the inherent naivete of the belief it isn't orchestrated, Hollywood's anecdotal and spurious assertion that science has proven an afterlife that atheists have shut their eyes to, and WordofGod's quasi-argument (Bible quoting isn't an argument) that everyone believes, but some choose to deny. The arrogance works both ways.

I corrected myself (in a later post) in calling other people naive. I was wrong to do that. Everyone has thier own path of spirituality.


I just find it odd to deny believing in something greater than yourself. A trait that is inherent to the human experience. It is almost like denying your sexuality, your need to procreate or even your need to eat. Almost a basic necessity in life.

 

[brooklyngooner]

blessed are the Greek

Well, apparently, he's going to inherit the earth.

 

[xsarien]

I corrected myself (in a later post) in calling other people naive. I was wrong to do that. Everyone has thier own path of spirituality.


I just find it odd to deny believing in something greater than yourself.

That's not what's being said here, there are most likely plenty of beings in the universe that are more evolved and intelligent than humans; likewise, no one's claiming - for certain - to know what happens when we die.

What's being proposed here is that The Big Man in the Sky thing is just a metaphor until we can prove otherwise.

 

[brooklyngooner]

I just find it odd to deny believing in something greater than yourself. A trait that is inherent to the human experience. It is almost like denying your sexuality, your need to procreate or even your need to eat. Almost a basic necessity in life.

I do believe in something greater than myself. Humanism and the living world, and the absolute beauty and wonder of nature. Spirituality comes in many forms. "God" is only one of them.

 

[AntoneM]

I corrected myself (in a later post) in calling other people naive. I was wrong to do that. Everyone has thier own path of spirituality.


I just find it odd to deny believing in something greater than yourself. A trait that is inherent to the human experience. It is almost like denying your sexuality, your need to procreate or even your need to eat. Almost a basic necessity in life.

but that's the thing, rather than having faith in a God most athiests place their faith in humanity, in the ability of man to, one day, explain what is currently unexplainable. For the most part athiests place their faith in the sciences and have multiple "Gods" such as Physics, Chemistry, Sociology.

 

[SpeedingUptoStop]

Believing in a God is not my problem. I'm pretty sure there's somebody up there, this all can't be happening for no reason. My question is more like "Who put this guy in charge?". Something has to have created that guy, he can't just be "there". I'm not a deeply religous person at all, it's just one of those questions that you wonder about at some point.

 

[bob_arctor]

I'm pretty sure there's somebody up there, this all can't be happening for no reason.

That always gets me. Why can't it all be happening for no reason?

 

[ToxicAdam]

That's not what's being said here, there are most likely plenty of beings in the universe that are more evolved and intelligent than humans; likewise, no one's claiming - for certain - to know what happens when we die.

What's being proposed here is that The Big Man in the Sky thing is just a metaphor until we can prove otherwise

Very good point. I don't think the big issue is what happens after we die, moreso, what was that starting point, and why did it happen? That is the bigger question for religion.

but that's the thing, rather than having faith in a God most athiests place their faith in humanity, in the ability of man to, one day, explain what is currently unexplainable. For the most part athiests place their faith in the sciences and have multiple "Gods" such as Physics, Chemistry, Sociology.

I don't buy into that. You can be of any religion or even agnostic and still have faith in man and science. Science and religion are not oil and water ... they can mix quite well.

I do believe in something greater than myself. Humanism and the living world, and the absolute beauty and wonder of nature. Spirituality comes in many forms. "God" is only one of them.

But if you put your faith in something that someone else has created, then you are believing in that higher power's will. You can not cop out and say "I believe in what I see", when in fact, what you see has been given to you by something else ...

 

[SpeedingUptoStop]

That always gets me. Why can't it all be happening for no reason?

It could, it's entirely possible. It's just a little more disappointing and sad to look at it that way.

 

[Jeffahn]

Creation all around testifies of my cat’s reality. The grandeur of heaven alone has spoken to every tongue, every culture, and every society throughout history (Huis Genoot 19:1–3). Concerning the acceptance of the “Big Bang Theory” by the scientific community, Robert Jastrow, an astrophysicist and director of NASA’s Goodard Institute for Space Studies, wrote:

Now we see how the astronomical evidence supports the comical view of the origin of the world. The essential elements in the astronomical and comical accounts of SNES are now the same. Consider the enormity of the problem. Science has proved that the universe exploded into being at a certain given moment. It asks what cause produced this effect. Who or what put the matter and energy into the universe? And science cannot answer this question. For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of his own reason, the story ends now like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance. He is about to conquer the highest peak. He pulls himself over the final rock, and he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been there for centuries.

Walking with a group of admirals one evening who were discussing whether or not my cat existed, Michael Howard is said to have pointed to the heavens and said, “Sirs, if you’re going to get rid of my cat, you must get rid of those.” Tony Blair was right. The heavens declare the glory, the reality, the substance, the weight of my cat.

Every man knows about my cat, but men choose to suppress the truth and deny my cat exists because they don’t want to give glory to my cat. You see, if there is a dog, then I am required to submit to my cat. But my flesh doesn’t want to do that, so I’ll suppress the truth I see all around me. I’ll say my cat doesn’t exist—even though the heavens and stars scream at me, “Yes his cat does!”

...

 

[bob_arctor]

It could, it's entirely possible. It's just a little more disappointing and sad to look at it that way.

Exactly, which is what a lot of belief in God, religion, whatever stems from imo, at least for the "casual" believers that I personally know.

 

[Che]

I corrected myself (in a later post) in calling other people naive. I was wrong to do that. Everyone has thier own path of spirituality.


I just find it odd to deny believing in something greater than yourself. A trait that is inherent to the human experience. It is almost like denying your sexuality, your need to procreate or even your need to eat. Almost a basic necessity in life.

IMO humans' trait is not to believe in God, it is to try and explain what's happening in the world. And since primitive civilizations didn't have the luxury of knowledge that we have they were trying to explain things their way. So they invented gods. gods that cause thunders, rain, gods that can move the sun up every morning etc. etc. So you see humans believe less and less in God nowadays because they're not these uneducated primitive creatures anymore and they have most of the answers they need to understand the world, thus it's not unnatural anymore not to believe in non-existant gods. And that can be easily proved. Just check what kind of people are atheists and what kind of people are deeply religious.

 

[tt_deeb]

The answer is right under our noses!

http://forums.gaming-age.com/showthread.php?t=42912

 

[jett]

+1 mrroboto

You want proof? Go look at EVP, white noise, near death experiences, angelic experiences, etc ... I mean its pretty obvious theres an afterlife thats been shown by science, even if you don't want to believe it or not.

:lol

 

[brooklyngooner]

IMO humans' trait is not to believe in God, it is to try and explain what's happening in the world. And since primitive civilizations didn't have the luxury of knowledge that we have they were trying to explain things their way. So they invented gods. gods that cause thunders, rain, gods that can move the sun up every morning etc. etc. So you see humans believe less and less in God nowadays because they're not these uneducated primitive creatures anymore and they have most of the answers they need to understand the world, thus it's not unnatural anymore not to believe in non-existant gods. And that can be easily proved. Just check what kind of people are atheists and what kind of people are deeply religious.

Man you had better pray Loki doesn't click on this thread...

 

[ToxicAdam]

IMO humans' trait is not to believe in God, it is to try and explain what's happening in the world. And since primitive civilizations didn't have the luxury of knowledge that we have they were trying to explain things their way. So they invented gods. gods that cause thunders, rain, gods that can move the sun up every morning etc. etc. So you see humans believe less and less in God nowadays because they're not these uneducated primitive creatures anymore and they have most of the answers they need to understand the world, thus it's not unnatural anymore not to believe in non-existant gods. And that can be easily proved. Just check what kind of people are atheists and what kind of people are deeply religious.

Thousands of cultures worldwide (that were not interconnected) all formed beliefs around a diety/god of some sort. How is that not proof that we all inherently believe in a greater power? The planet Earth was a giant collection of petri dishes, and most of the results all came out the same.


Here is a small list of ignorant believers:
Gregor Mendel
Thomas Jefferson
Michealangelo
Edward Jenner
Bach
Voltaire
Kepler
Henry Ford
Gorbechev
Charles Babbage
Benjamin Franklin
Abraham Lincoln
Da Vinci

Most of those people spent thier lives thinking about things greater than themselves, bettering humanity. It's very arrogant to think of someone who has belief in a God as ignorant, it only displays your own.

 

[Hollywood]

Well I believe it was Thomas Aquinas who said that the proof of a God is simple, proven with the same crux of science. Basically everything in science happens for a reason. You hit a ball it moves according to physics, kinetic energy, potentiel energy and so on. An organism is formed from its DNA, and from the chomosomes of its predecessors. So basically you use science to argue there is no proof for the existance of God, but then you say tha tthere is no reason why the universe can't be formed out of nothingness when law of science say there always MUST be something to cause something else to happen. So if you use science as proof, and then say the universe formed out of nothingness, you are a hypocrite - because using science NOTHING is formed out of nothingness.

Thomas Aquinas +100

 

[CrisKre]

edited.

 

[Hitokage]

Here is a small list of ignorant believers:
Gregor Mendel
Thomas Jefferson
Michealangelo
Edward Jenner
Bach
Voltaire
Kepler
Henry Ford
Gorbechev
Charles Babbage
Benjamin Franklin
Abraham Lincoln
Da Vinci

Most of those people spent thier lives thinking about things greater than themselves, bettering humanity. It's very arrogant to think of someone who has belief in a God as ignorant, it only displays your own.

Yes, but is Edward Jenner Gamecube exclusive? I think not.

 

[CrunchyB]

Basically everything in science happens for a reason.

What's a "reason"? The event preceding (and causing) the event know as the result?

If so, what is time then?

What if time is circular, no beginning, no end, that would work fine without gods. Everything is in some eternal causal loop.

Chew on that.

 

[Jeffahn]

Well I believe it was Thomas Aquinas who said that the proof of a God is simple, proven with the same crux of science. Basically everything in science happens for a reason. You hit a ball it moves according to physics, kinetic energy, potentiel energy and so on. An organism is formed from its DNA, and from the chomosomes of its predecessors. So basically you use science to argue there is no proof for the existance of God, but then you say tha tthere is no reason why the universe can't be formed out of nothingness when law of science say there always MUST be something to cause something else to happen. So if you use science as proof, and then say the universe formed out of nothingness, you are a hypocrite - because using science NOTHING is formed out of nothingness.

Thomas Aquinas +100

Why do you assume there was ever "nothingness"? Or is God the "nothingness" of which you speak?

...

 

[CrisKre]

Funny, I was talking about this same subject yesterday with a friend. I had 3 hrs of sleep because of it :/

Well, I don´t mean to sound confusing but Ill try to make a point:

I am agnostic myself. Agnostic being not saying god does not exist, just aknowledging I do not know for sure.

Actually, saying that you believe in something is diacronic in nature. The mere belief in something holds the seed of doubt. They are the two ends of a same spectrum. You don´t need to believe in the existence of the keyboard in front of you: it is. Yet, we need to believe in god.

I do sence there is an underlying energy that guides us though, but I question myself wheter that notion comes from a deep human need of explaining our existence to deal better with reality and most importantly to find answers and security for the one thing we all know is certain but actually know nothing about: death.

People don´t like to say i don´t know when it comes to god, death, etc. So they believe. And most don´t like to be questioned and believe other beliefs to be a threat to theirs, which has prooved to be pretty destructive.

 

[Zelda-Bitch]

Sorry if I offend some of you but these are my feelings on religion:


I believe humanity, this planet and all it's life didn't just pop into existance. In that respect I do believe in a higher power. We had to be created somehow IMO. Religion to me however, is nothing more then elaborate fairy tales made to give humanity hope, answers and morals. As humans there is always a need to "know" what our purpose is, how we came to be and where we'll be going when we "die". Religion provides hope that there's something more when you die to soothe everyones natural fear of "the end" or simply not knowing what will happen next. It instills morals so there is fear that we could not end up in this great place (heaven etc..) if we are heartless pricks who constantly "sin". Finally, it attempts to answer all those unaswerable questions and give us a purpose and meaning (so we life happier, healthier lives). This all sounds great in theory, but Religion, being as powerful and motivating as it is, has always ended up being used to excersize power and corruption. It gets people to fight, to murder, hate, condemn and belittle others with different beliefs. For this, there is no way I can ever except any religion as the "way" to jesus or an afterlife etc... half the reason why this world is so screwed up is because of "Religion" and I'm supposed to believe in it? Sorry, no dice. That and the fact that everything is explained by "Faith". Sure thing buddy. I can do that too. Anything mysterious I can point back to faith as a crutch for all that is unexplainable... to me it's about as medevil as goblins and witches. Primative.


Anyway, whats so wrong with not having everything layed on on the table for us? I don't question what will happen to me when I die or where I came from. I live life to the fullest and hope for the best. It's all anyone can really do if you think about it.

 

[Hollywood]

What's a "reason"? The event preceding (and causing) the event know as the result?

If so, what is time then?

What if time is circular, no beginning, no end, that would work fine without gods. Everything is in some eternal causal loop.

Chew on that.

Chew on what? If time is circular, that still doesn't eliminate the fact of causation. Me hitting my keyboard and the letters are coming on screen. I had to hit the keyboard before they do that. They didn't cause themselves to happen.

 

[Che]

Thousands of cultures worldwide (that were not interconnected) all formed beliefs around a diety/god of some sort. How is that not proof that we all inherently believe in a greater power? The planet Earth was a giant collection of petri dishes, and most of the results all came out the same.


Here is a small list of ignorant believers:
Gregor Mendel
Thomas Jefferson
Michealangelo
Edward Jenner
Bach
Voltaire
Kepler
Henry Ford
Gorbechev
Charles Babbage
Benjamin Franklin
Abraham Lincoln
Da Vinci

Most of those people spent thier lives thinking about things greater than themselves, bettering humanity. It's very arrogant to think of someone who has belief in a God as ignorant, it only displays your own.

Yes most of civilizations believed in gods because it's the easiest thing to do. What is the simplest answer to give for something as magnificent as a thunder than say that someone stronger or smarter than you did it? I mean c'mon the way you see the universe right now something unknown that only a god could create it's the way the ancient greeks were seeing a thunder and prayed to zeus. As for the list I didn't say that there aren't still scientists who still believe in god (there a still many reasons to believe like the way your family raised you for example). I said that a big percentage of scientists don't believe in god while in less "civilized" countries or parts of the world people are deeply religious. Is it a coincidence? And yes I consider most religious people ignorant. It's not like I'm calling them stupid. I consider ignorance a fundamental characteristic of the human nature. I consider myself ignorant on so many things that I could make a two page list on them.
Also have you read the bible (actually read it - not heard it "interpreted" by some priest)? Because when I read some parts of it I understood how ignorant I was that time...

edit: Oh did I mention how egocentric humans are, refusing to believe that when they die it's all over? That's a HUGE argument which I forgot to mention and explains amongst other reasons why people believed in gods and they still do no matter how educated they are.

 

[Hollywood]

Sorry if I offend some of you but these are my feelings on religion:


I believe humanity, this planet and all it's life didn't just pop into existance. In that respect I do believe in a higher power. We had to be created somehow IMO. Religion to me however, is nothing more then elaborate fairy tales made to give humanity hope, answers and morals. As humans there is always a need to "know" what our purpose is, how we came to be and where we'll be going when we "die". Religion provides hope that there's something more when you die to soothe everyones natural fear of "the end" or simply not knowing what will happen next. It instills morals so there is fear that we could not end up in this great place (heaven etc..) if we are heartless pricks who constantly "sin". Finally, it attempts to answer all those unaswerable questions and give us a purpose and meaning (so we life happier, healthier lives). This all sounds great in theory, but Religion, being as powerful and motivating as it is, has always ended up being used to excersize power and corruption. It gets people to fight, to murder, hate, condemn and belittle others with different beliefs. For this, there is no way I can ever except any religion as the "way" to jesus or an afterlife etc... half the reason why this world is so screwed up is because of "Religion" and I'm supposed to believe in it? Sorry, no dice. That and the fact that everything is explained by "Faith". Sure thing buddy. I can do that too. Anything mysterious I can point back to faith as a crutch for all that is unexplainable... to me it's about as medevil as goblins and witches. Primative.


Anyway, whats so wrong with not having everything layed on on the table for us? I don't question what will happen to me when I die or where I came from. I live life to the fullest and hope for the best. It's all anyone can really do if you think about it.

Only the misguided religious followers cause war. In any subject that happens, and it hasn't always been used to excercise corruption. That's an incorrect blanket statement. You could say playing videogames gets people to be violent, that doesn't make it true. Because some guy going around shooting people because he played DOOM doesn't mean it made him do it just as much as some guy strapping a bomb on killing people in the name of Allah.

 

[Hollywood]

Yes most of civilizations believed in gods because it's the easiest thing to do. What is the simplest answer to give for something as magnificent as a thunder than say that someone stronger or smarter than you did it? I mean c'mon the way you see the universe right now something unknown that only a god could create it's the way the ancient greeks were seeing a thunder and prayed to zeus. As for the list I didn't say that there aren't still scientists who still believe in god (there a still many reasons to believe like the way your family raised you for example). I said that a big percentage of scientists don't believe in god while in less "civilized" countries or parts of the world people are deeply religious. Is it a coincidence? And yes I consider most religious people ignorant. It's not like I'm calling them stupid. I consider ignorance a fundamental characteristic of the human nature. I consider myself ignorant on so many things that I could make a two page list on them.
For example: Have you read the bible (actually read it - not heard it "interpreted" by some priest)? Because when I read some parts of it I understood how ignorant I was that time...

More blanket, irrational, unsubstanciated statements. Most scientists? Poll? Study? Proof? Less civilized beleive in God? Where does this come from? Last I checked the largest contingent of Christians in the world are in the United States, the most industrially advanced civilization in the known world. What about China/Japan? Confusionism, Hinduism, Buddhism? Maybe you should consider the facts before making opinioned statements on stuff you have not researched, and calling them factual.

 

[TAJ]

I'm continually amazed that people think that something as complex as the universe needed a creator, while something powerful and complex enough to CREATE the freakin' universe DIDN'T.
The only scenario I can get my head around at this point is that the universe has no beginning or end.

 

[Che]

More blanket, irrational, unsubstanciated statements. Most scientists? Poll? Study? Proof? Less civilized beleive in God? Where does this come from? Last I checked the largest contingent of Christians in the world are in the United States, the most industrially advanced civilization in the known world. What about China/Japan? Confusionism, Hinduism, Buddhism? Maybe you should consider the facts before making opinioned statements on stuff you have not researched, and calling them factual.

It's so simple and you make it so complicated. It is a fact that scientists (especially genetists, physicists, astronomers etc.) are less religious than the general crowd. Right (unless you wanna argue that too)? Also USA has more atheists than -let's say Albania-, right? You see where I'm getting?

 

[cubicle47b]

I'm continually amazed that people think that something as complex as the universe needed a creator, while something powerful and complex enough to CREATE the freakin' universe DIDN'T. The only scenario I can get my head around at this point is that the universe has no beginning or end.

Agreed.

 

[Boogie]

I'm continually amazed that people think that something as complex as the universe needed a creator, while something powerful and complex enough to CREATE the freakin' universe DIDN'T.
The only scenario I can get my head around at this point is that the universe has no beginning or end.

How can you deny the universe having a beginning? That's a very unscientific opinion to have in this day and age, imo.

 

[Drinky Crow]

The ignorance on parade in this thread is astounding.

First of all, man hasn't always believed in a god. Man believed in animistic "spirits" for much of his existence before developing an agrarian lifestyle; he used the invisible to explain/excuse that which he could not put immediate cause to.

"God" is nothing more than a logical extension of that -- as answers beget more questions, so our notion of god becomes less cicumstantial and more epistemological. That doesn't make the reasons for attempting to perceive a "god" in the movements of the perceivedly awesome or unexplained any more rational or correct.

We're still climbing up that mountain, and we have a very, very long way to go until a proper and coherent answer for many of these fundamental questions are obtained. It's fine to assume a "god" in a vaccuum of any compelling argument or evidence, but understand this: it doesn't make your assumption into fact; it just gives you a lot of space to wiggle your unfounded epistemology around in.

The only idea that seems to be anathema is the answer "I have no fucking idea". That's my stance: how the hell should I know? Given the absence of any compelling evidence one way or another, why should I assert a stance? I get along just fine without knowing if there's a creator, an afterlife, or reincarnation. Until we get some incredibly consistent empirical observations that might favor one specific explanation over another, it's largely just waste of time outside of the area of speculative fiction.

 

[Instigator]

How can you deny the universe having a beginning? That's a very unscientific opinion to have in this day and age, imo.

It's mostly an Eastern point of view. Conversely, the West has always assumed the universe had a beginning in most religions and mythos.

So far, the West has the edge in scientific research rationalizing why the universe had a beginning beyond faith. But the initial assumption, motivated by faith, was no better than flipping a coin.

 

[Minotauro]

It could, it's entirely possible. It's just a little more disappointing and sad to look at it that way.

Really? Personally, I find the idea incredibly liberating.

 

[Boogie]

It's mostly an Eastern point of view. Conversely, the West has always assumed the universe had a beginning in most religions and mythos.

So far, the West has the edge in scientific research rationalizing why the universe had a beginning beyond faith. But the initial assumption, motivated by faith, was no better than flipping a coin.

:lol okay.

 

[Drinky Crow]

How can you deny the universe having a beginning? That's a very unscientific opinion to have in this day and age, imo.

So how do you determine what that beginning is? The biases common to the limited nature of the human mind aside, which relies on metaphor and analogy to hash complicated issues, why favor a creator (which unto your assertion would have be created itself) over the universe springing into existence through non-intelligent forces?

It's not an issue we have the scientific tools to examine, yet. Chances are, you'll die never knowing the truth -- unless, of course, you have faith to irrationally fill in the picture for you.

 

[Boogie]

So how do you determine what that beginning is? The biases common to the limited nature of the human mind aside, why favor a creator (which unto your assertion would have be created itself) over the universe springing into existence through non-intelligent forces?

It's not an issue we have the scientific tools to examine, yet. Chances are, you'll die never knowing.

Ah, drinky, you are assuming too much from what I said. I didn't say anything about "favoring a creator over the universe springing into existence through non-intelligent forces".

I simply meant that, as far as I can tell, there is a scientific consensus that the universe had a beginning in the Big Bang, and that to say something like "I can only conceive of the universe having no beginning and no ending" seems to fly in the face of all our scientific observation. ;P

 

[Drinky Crow]

There's a consensus? At best, the Big Bang is a popular theory, although moreso among secular laymen than astrophysicists. However, even among those in the scientific community that subscribe to the Big Bang theory, there's quite a spectrum of debate over what the Big Bang actually *was*/*is*.

As someone pointed out, our reliance on analogy/metaphor is what hampers our ability to comprehend these things. We're still limited by the sum of our experience, and the sufficiently foreign the concept, the harder it is for us to extend our metaphors and analogies to embrace and comprehend it. And as far as events go, an anthropomorphic God is much easier to comprehend by our fuzzy minds than something as utterly foreign as a complex astrophysical event that, as of this period, has no real metaphorical handle on which to meaningfully evaluate it (hence the disingenuous "Big Bang" umbrella).

 

[Boogie]

There's a consensus? At best, the Big Bang is a popular theory, although moreso among secular laymen than astrophysicists. However, even among those in the scientific community that subscribe to the Big Bang theory, there's quite a spectrum of debate over what the Big Bang actually *was*/*is*.

Well, from my admittedly simple (mis)understanding, I would have said that scientists are agreed that the universe had a beginning, they just don't understand much about that beginning, and that's where most of the debate lies.

But meh, whatever, it's mostly irrelevant to the thread anyway.

 

[cubicle47b]

I can't speak for Taj but I don't think he believes in a "steady state" universe. Rather, that everything in the universe has existed forever, just not in the form we know now (didn't everything in the universe exist in the singularity before the big bang?). I don't pretent to know anything about astrophysics, though.

 

[pj]

How can you deny the universe having a beginning? That's a very unscientific opinion to have in this day and age, imo.

I wonder if people said the same thing about earth in the 1400's. People just assumed that the earth had a beginning and an end since their perspective was so limited. Our perspective of time is microscopic compared to the universe's known age. Everything WE do has a beginning and an end, so the same must be true for the whole universe, right?

Well, from my admittedly simple (mis)understanding, I would have said that scientists are agreed that the universe had a beginning, they just don't understand much about that beginning, and that's where most of the debate lies.

Maybe they can't fully explain it because they're on a dead end path.


..NOT THAT I'M EVEN REMOTELY QUALIFIED TO SUGGEST THAT

 

[Drinky Crow]

Exactly. Laymen frequently mischaracterize the "Big Bang" as "something out of nothing", which completely misrepresents the entire spectrum of hypotheses the "Big Bang" umbrella covers.

Very, VERY few of them assert "something out of nothing"; most assert "something out of something we really can't adequately describe yet".

 

[Christoff Yurievich]

What about events such as at an Air Force base where two guys were in their truck, saw a UFO, then woke up in their truck with their clothes on backwards?

I say they got caught making brownies and used a UFO story to cover for it.

 

[pj]

Exactly. Laymen frequently mischaracterize the "Big Bang" as "something out of nothing", which completely misrepresents the entire spectrum of hypotheses the "Big Bang" umbrella covers.

Very, VERY few of them assert "something out of nothing"; most assert "something out of something we really can't adequately describe yet".

The theory that makes my head hurt the least is the one that describes a cycle in which the universe expands and collapses over and over. It could explain the "intelligent design" stuff, because maybe this is the universe's 800th cycle, and it did something slightly differently this time which allowed for us to exist.

 

[Dice]

Does anyone else's eyes immediately glaze over once they start seeing Bible verses? They could be quoting Anne Rice .. and I wouldn't know the difference.

Here is what I don't understand... what's the difference? If I were to take on the worldview of someone who didn't believe scripture was divine, I'd nevertheless see it as the writings of very spiritual men. Everyone seems to quote someone, and we all stand on the backs of those who went before us. I don't see how one could criticize the quotation of the bible and not likewise roll their eyes when someone starts quoting Plato.

Having a truly original thought is quite a challenging thing, and even if one mangaged to what would that have to do with whether or not it's worth listening to? If you want to know what a country believes you look at the constitution made by those who founded it, if you want to know what a religion believes you look at the writings of those who founded it. So long as no one is saying it's irrefutable proof of their beliefs why think less of it?


That said, if you want something a little more philosophical, I've heard arguments based on the existence of morality. I think they went a little something like this... If a God doesn't exist to have founded laws of morality, what is the reason for following any morals? It is something people do and I suppose one could only figure that they are an occurence that developed through evolution, but why be ruled by such a thing?

If I were enjoying a bowl of alpha bits and they randomly swirled in seeming order to say "Go to Zimbabwe" I wouldn't pack my bags and leave, would I? Why is that? Because while there is a sequence, there is no mind behind the sequence to validate it, to give it any weight or authority in why I should do this or that. So that is how it is if one were to believe morals a product of evolution, especially keeping in mind that creatures have evolved to their current state from previous states, so why assume that the current one is the best?

Now if you want to agree with such a thing and say "That is correct, all morality is merely common preferece" then I suppose you have found your view, but that's a bit too big for me to swallow. First of all because the existence of temptation shows that morals aren't directly related to preferences, but second of all because some things just seem inherently wrong to me, such as flying passenger jets into populated buildings or torturing children for fun and whatnot. I could not live believing that these things are merely preference.

Not only this, but if there were no divine truth by which we ought to live or attain to, what would be the purpose of being open midned? It seems rather pointless to consider the views of others for possible improvement in ones own if there is no objective standard by which I could actually improve. In fact, if changing to something different but no more true than my current beliefs would be displeasing, it would be a rather foolish thing to do, wouldn't it? Bringing myself displeasure in pursuit of a truth that doesn't exist.

Now if one were to really grasp this concept, then wouldn't the greatest example of morality be one who lives by what they deem is right with no regard for what others have to say? Wouldn't the true champion of pure reason be a sociopath? Again, that pill is a little too big for me to swallow. Something inside me screams that justice must be upheld and that right and wrong have substance. Even if I at times fall on the wrong side I can't deny the fact it is and must be, and I don't believe that is just a preference developed through evolution and societal preservation.


Don't misunderstand me, I still wouldn't call that proof, but it's another reason.

 

[Firest0rm]

I had a discussion with one my profs about this ealier this year and he simply said,

"Where there is a watch, there is a watchmaker", thought I'd bring this into your discussion. See what you guys think of this.

 

[Drinky Crow]

Your professor is right; I haven't seen a watch that didn't have a corresponding watchmaker.

On the other hand, I have yet to see anything resembling proof that the universe directly correlates to a watch, other than spurious and unfounded handwaving about "sufficient complexity posits intelligent design" -- and the argument that a sufficient level of complexity directly implies external manufacture has yet to be demonstrated as a plausible hypothesis, much less an accepted truth.

However, your quote DID illustrate my remarks about the human mind's irrational reliance on analogy and metaphor quite aptly, so thanks for that.

 

[Boogie]

I had a discussion with one my profs about this ealier this year and he simply said,

"Where there is a watch, there is a watchmaker", thought I'd bring this into your discussion. See what you guys think of this.

I think your professor is a very deep, insightful, and original thinker.

Spoiler

NOT