Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Does GOD exist?
This discussion has been closed.
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Comments
LC-
No I understand the principals of scientific testing very well but you are correct also. I was just trying to give a good description while still being as brief as possible as I hate having to read "Wall of text" type posts so I try not to subject others to them as well. While Scientific Theories can be tested in parts the overall theory cannot be tested. If it could it would move beyond being a theory into the realm of fact and become a law of nature. As I stated in my original post, the facts supporting a theory can be tested but the theory as a whole cannot. In that article you linked to (Which was a very interesting read BTW, thanks
) they are testing small pieces of the theory independently (The supporting facts) and not the theory as a whole. Don't get me wrong however, I'm in no way saying that Evolution or the Big Bang are false in any way as I very much believe in them and continue to study them. My main objective was to show how actual science has checks and balances and Pseudoscience does not.
As for God doing harm as well as good in people's lives I whole-heartedly agree. For the reasons you stated as well as the fact that some of the most horrific episodes in our history where a direct result of religious influence. Also at least 90% of all wars have basically been over "My God is better than your God". More lives have been lost in the name of one God or another than for any other single reason. I was mainly thinking on a much smaller scale in my original summation however and was only considering God's influence on the individual. Belief can be a very powerful thing and can affect people's lives both positively and negatively.
Bren
Edit: Also I'd like to add that Scientific Theories remain theories so they can change over time as new evidence presents itself. The Theory of Evolution and the Big Bang Theory have change dramatically in the last 30 years alone as Scientific Methods have improved with technological advances and as new facts are tested and proven. This way the theories themselves can evolve over time as our Scientific awareness broadens.
while(horse==dead)
{
beat();
}
With all of that said, I would most certainly say no. There are far too many inconsistancies with the classic and current view of god for me to consider such a being even close to a likely possibility.
That said, I will concede there is ample room for another force, even an intelligence or purpose in what we know of the universe, and that the existence of such would indeed fill a number of theoretical holes in need of closure.
The concept these days of God is mostly dogmatic, a barbaric picture of what God is like suitable for people of the time it was written. Every religious text and belief uses a medium of truth, such as philisophical ideas worked into Gods "words"
There is a deep connection between knowledge and religion, that few see and the rest dont bother. A truth known to every great philosopher and physicist that ever lived. I cant explain what its like, you have to read philosophical quotes and ideas, and be open minded to a degree. A major portion of the belief is knowledge, i have a compulsive habit to gather random knowledge at times, and after time you see a connection. Explained by philosophy.
Once you grasp the basic concept of philosophy, you see a new value in life, undeniably set there by a designer.
It seems you have a very flawed idea of what philosophy is like.
Let me first direct you to this to simply disprove your argument that you have to believe in a designer once you grasp the basic concept of philosophy
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bertrand_Russel
What you have done is listen to philosophy of one side of the fence while you have ignored the other, made by philosophy who ignore perhaps the most important question:
If the designer made mankind...Who made the designer?
Bertrand Russel isnt the king of philosophers, he has a bitter attitude in his works; which do contain truth, but that doesnt constitute his belief to be true. Like i said people use a medium on which they base truth. Ill share some quotes that might help.
"My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind." -Albert Einstein
“To one who has faith, no explanation is necessary. To one without faith, no explanation is possible.” -St. Thomas Aquinas
"I do not know how to teach philosophy without becoming a disturber of established religion” -Baruch Spinoza
And one of my favorite
"A little philosophy inclineth man's mind to atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth man's minds about to religion." -Sir Francis Bacon
First of all Albert Einstein was not religious, I suggest you do a bit more research on his views.You also seem to have missed this part of the Bertrand Russel page.
Russell had a major influence on modern philosophy, especially in the English-speaking world. While others were also influential, notably Frege, Moore, and Wittgenstein, Russell made analysis the dominant methodology of professional philosophy. The various analytic movements throughout the last century all owe something to Russell's earlier works.
Russell's influence on individual philosophers is singular, perhaps most notably in the case of Ludwig Wittgenstein, who was his student between 1911 and 1914.[47] It should also be observed that Wittgenstein exerted considerable influence on Russell, especially in leading him to conclude, much to his regret, that mathematical truths were purely tautological truths. Evidence of Russell's influence on Wittgenstein can be seen throughout the Tractatus, which Russell was instrumental in having published. Russell also helped to secure Wittgenstein's doctorate[48] and a faculty position at Cambridge, along with several fellowships along the way.[49] However, as previously stated, he came to disagree with Wittgenstein's later linguistic and analytic approach to philosophy dismissing it as "trivial," while Wittgenstein came to think of Russell as "superficial and glib," particularly in his popular writings. Russell's influence is also evident in the work of A. J. Ayer, Rudolf Carnap, Alonzo Church, Kurt Gödel, David Kaplan, Saul Kripke, Karl Popper, W. V. Quine, John R. Searle, and a number of other philosophers and logicians.
Some see Russell's influence as mostly negative, primarily those who have been critical of Russell's emphasis on science and logic, the consequent diminishing of metaphysics, and of his insistence that ethics lies outside of philosophy. Russell's admirers and detractors are often more acquainted with his pronouncements on social and political matters, or what some (e.g., biographer Ray Monk) have called his "journalism," than they are with his technical, philosophical work. There is a marked tendency to conflate these matters, and to judge Russell the philosopher on what he himself would certainly consider to be his non-philosophical opinions. Russell often cautioned people to make this distinction.
Russell left a large assortment of writing. From his adolescent years, Russell wrote about 3,000 words a day, with relatively few corrections; his first draft nearly always was his last draft, even on the most complex, technical matters. His previously unpublished work is an immense treasure trove, and scholars are continuing to gain new insights into Russell's thought.
There are many, many atheist philosophers. To say that philosophy equals a religious view is downright ignorant and incorrect.
The answer to the question is no. God was created by man, to give themselves a reason to live and a reason to die. "So sad to see Jimmy die. but it was gods will, so it's all good. Jimmy is in a safe place with our lord now. I can sleep easy at night knowing god is watching over Jimmy and his family."
Religion was created to keep the flock of sheep in line with "The Laws" of the bible. It's all mythology voodoo magic in my book. Unless someone can show me outside of a bible where there is proof of a god, I will never believe.
If your talking about the crusades they werent really religious. It was more of the leaders egos. The turks were pressing for more land just to have it not becuase of religion. When Israel was captured it was basicly the egos of the leaders of the Cathlitoc church that got hurt so theyw ent to take it back.
Hold on Snow Leopard, imma let you finish, but Windows had one of the best operating systems of all time.
If the Powerball lottery was like Lotro, nobody would win for 2 years, and then everyone in Nebraska would win on the same day.
And then Nebraska would get nerfed.-pinkwood lotro fourms
AMD 4800 2.4ghz-3GB RAM 533mhz-EVGA 9500GT 512mb-320gb HD
I wanted to say I agree wholeheartedly with the last paragraph.I contest some things with evolution as do some of my associates I work with. That does not mean that some parts of evolution is not true. The same goes with the "BIG Bang". But within both theories there are mistakes. The one I am frequent of pointing out is spontaneous mutation. There is nothing "spontaneous" with mutation.
I know some of you contest this every time I bring it up. But the scientific method alone proves that "Spontaneous" is a incorrect term. Why many scientists just use mutation, not spontaneous mutation. Even if you google "Spontaneous mutation" and click on the Wikpedia. When Wikpedia shows it does not say "spontaneous" but says "Mutation".
I am actually quite surprised that they still teach that part of evolution in school. It is a bit outdated by current study. I am also annoyed that those who believe in religion and those who are opposite of that use evolution as a parlay tool to prove/disprove a ideology.
As to my post since I originally started this series of threads. I am not asking this question as a theist but from a scientific standpoint. I do study I.D but not for the purpose of proving a religion is "right" or the opposite"Wrong". But it is a question that should be answered. Probability is out the door on this. In ones life you will see a occurrence that by far beats odds that make it a impossibility.
Technology in-particular in my field has advanced 500% just in the past 10 years. In many other sectors of science it has exponentially increased beyond our current expectations and will continue to do so. Evolution has had very little to do with these advances. Well let me put it this way. The "Evolution" that high school kids are taught and the "Evolution" that is debated much on these forums. There is "Evolution" But enhanced.
From a Geneticist to a Micro- Chemist evolution only fits in some categories. Each year the advances in both fields are making evolution less and less viable. Why Evolution is a theory. 90% of major breakthroughs have occurred in the past 25 years of the last 100. 70% of those breakthroughs have occurred in the past 10 years.
In my field. The simulation of organic structures with chemical structures has had its most advances in the past 10 years. In the next year the first chip set will come out that is completely soluble. It will have no fractal particles whatever . We already have self-repairing chemicals thanks to nano-technology. How is it done? We just copy our organic counterparts that perform the same function.
In my field I am primarily responsible for coding. Why I have a thing called a Binary Theory as many of you have read about. The only coding that works chemically is binary. But the foundations of this goes beyond just chemistry. It seems to be the only language that natural elements understand.
Chemistry and Genetics have much in common in this type of research.
In the next 10 years I believe we will have the greatest breakthrough in human history. A crackpot like me which deals with new theory(Not necessarily me). Will find the "Orgin" which will open a trascendency of universal understanding. And everything we see as of now will just be viewed as we would view the ancient civilizations and cultures of our past.
Once someone told me that in the next couple of years what we call the internet will be filled up(Even with the" Grid"). The reality is that which is the internet has barely even been touched. Man wants to control something that it may never fully control, but may at one point fully understand it. Just know what you see here and now looking into this monitor is nothing more of code being filtered. Thats it! Nothing more.
Some would want you to believe that there are set limitations. This is done as a way of keeping control and getting you to believe that its limited. The same way our government uses fear to force agenda and force oppression.
Something to really think about. In every form of science, experiments take place. The results of these experiments are made by what process? From isotope readings to simple chemical reactions. What data is used to give you the result. I hope you follow what I am saying. Physical readings or numeric values greater than 1,0 have very little to do withe process. They just give a result or answer on the thought of what education has taught you. Kind of a layered answer.
Many of the responses on these boards are given from this type of thinking. Only the surface is given out not the full answer.
Frankly, Evolution to me is outdated. It served its purpose as does any other meaningful theory that is a host for other theories. I am sorry if some of you do disagree with me. That is your prerogative. But I still will stand by my view of evolution and I.D.
Sincerely xpowderx
P.S I know I have some editing errors! I am with my Grand-baby so really can care less. Not like im giving out a portfolio or a thesis!
Why yes.. he does exist
I agree with you, qotsa but I do think that some good has come out of the Bible. After all, the rules laid down by the ancient text were put in place to better humanity. Our ancestors just had to create a powerful "policeman" to enforce the laws....hence, God. Otherwise, no one would have obeyed the rules and anarchy would have reigned. In this day and age, however, the time has come to drop the antiquated belief in a mythical being and take responsibility for our own actions. We all know the difference between right and wrong.
I believe he is trying to get across the difference between the concept of God and the actuality of God for his position.
If you are not being responded to directly, you are probably on my ignore list.
And they used religion to justify their actions.
Bren
while(horse==dead)
{
beat();
}
With all of that said, I would most certainly say no. There are far too many inconsistancies with the classic and current view of god for me to consider such a being even close to a likely possibility.
That said, I will concede there is ample room for another force, even an intelligence or purpose in what we know of the universe, and that the existence of such would indeed fill a number of theoretical holes in need of closure.
The concept these days of God is mostly dogmatic, a barbaric picture of what God is like suitable for people of the time it was written. Every religious text and belief uses a medium of truth, such as philisophical ideas worked into Gods "words"
There is a deep connection between knowledge and religion, that few see and the rest dont bother. A truth known to every great philosopher and physicist that ever lived. I cant explain what its like, you have to read philosophical quotes and ideas, and be open minded to a degree. A major portion of the belief is knowledge, i have a compulsive habit to gather random knowledge at times, and after time you see a connection. Explained by philosophy.
Once you grasp the basic concept of philosophy, you see a new value in life, undeniably set there by a designer.
It seems you have a very flawed idea of what philosophy is like.
Let me first direct you to this to simply disprove your argument that you have to believe in a designer once you grasp the basic concept of philosophy
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bertrand_Russel
What you have done is listen to philosophy of one side of the fence while you have ignored the other, made by philosophy who ignore perhaps the most important question:
If the designer made mankind...Who made the designer?
Bertrand Russel isnt the king of philosophers, he has a bitter attitude in his works; which do contain truth, but that doesnt constitute his belief to be true. Like i said people use a medium on which they base truth. Ill share some quotes that might help.
"My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind." -Albert Einstein
“To one who has faith, no explanation is necessary. To one without faith, no explanation is possible.” -St. Thomas Aquinas
"I do not know how to teach philosophy without becoming a disturber of established religion” -Baruch Spinoza
And one of my favorite
"A little philosophy inclineth man's mind to atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth man's minds about to religion." -Sir Francis Bacon
First of all Albert Einstein was not religious, I suggest you do a bit more research on his views.You also seem to have missed this part of the Bertrand Russel page.
Russell had a major influence on modern philosophy, especially in the English-speaking world. While others were also influential, notably Frege, Moore, and Wittgenstein, Russell made analysis the dominant methodology of professional philosophy. The various analytic movements throughout the last century all owe something to Russell's earlier works.
Russell's influence on individual philosophers is singular, perhaps most notably in the case of Ludwig Wittgenstein, who was his student between 1911 and 1914.[47] It should also be observed that Wittgenstein exerted considerable influence on Russell, especially in leading him to conclude, much to his regret, that mathematical truths were purely tautological truths. Evidence of Russell's influence on Wittgenstein can be seen throughout the Tractatus, which Russell was instrumental in having published. Russell also helped to secure Wittgenstein's doctorate[48] and a faculty position at Cambridge, along with several fellowships along the way.[49] However, as previously stated, he came to disagree with Wittgenstein's later linguistic and analytic approach to philosophy dismissing it as "trivial," while Wittgenstein came to think of Russell as "superficial and glib," particularly in his popular writings. Russell's influence is also evident in the work of A. J. Ayer, Rudolf Carnap, Alonzo Church, Kurt Gödel, David Kaplan, Saul Kripke, Karl Popper, W. V. Quine, John R. Searle, and a number of other philosophers and logicians.
Some see Russell's influence as mostly negative, primarily those who have been critical of Russell's emphasis on science and logic, the consequent diminishing of metaphysics, and of his insistence that ethics lies outside of philosophy. Russell's admirers and detractors are often more acquainted with his pronouncements on social and political matters, or what some (e.g., biographer Ray Monk) have called his "journalism," than they are with his technical, philosophical work. There is a marked tendency to conflate these matters, and to judge Russell the philosopher on what he himself would certainly consider to be his non-philosophical opinions. Russell often cautioned people to make this distinction.
Russell left a large assortment of writing. From his adolescent years, Russell wrote about 3,000 words a day, with relatively few corrections; his first draft nearly always was his last draft, even on the most complex, technical matters. His previously unpublished work is an immense treasure trove, and scholars are continuing to gain new insights into Russell's thought.
There are many, many atheist philosophers. To say that philosophy equals a religious view is downright ignorant and incorrect.
Albert Einstein was an extremely religious person. Just not in the sense your use to. We all have different definitions of words, it might be easier to say he was spiritual.
All religions, arts and sciences are branches of the same tree.
God always takes the simplest way.
I want to know all Gods thoughts; all the rest are just details.
Morality is of the highest importance - but for us, not for God.
God does not play dice.
God may be subtle, but he isn't plain mean.
I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation and is but a reflection of human frailty.
I am a deeply religious nonbeliever - this is a somewhat new kind of religion.
Before God we are all equally wise - and equally foolish.
- Albert Einstein
Many of Ludwig's work have the same basic template throughout all philosophy. God is the big picture behind it all thats extremely hard to describe when you don't weigh and consider the philosophy that out there. And my knowledge is half my faith. God has shown himself undeniably throughout my life and people close to me.
Albert Einstein was an extremely religious person. Just not in the sense your use to. We all have different definitions of words, it might be easier to say he was spiritual.
All religions, arts and sciences are branches of the same tree.
God always takes the simplest way.
I want to know all Gods thoughts; all the rest are just details.
Morality is of the highest importance - but for us, not for God.
God does not play dice.
God may be subtle, but he isn't plain mean.
I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation and is but a reflection of human frailty.
I am a deeply religious nonbeliever - this is a somewhat new kind of religion.
Before God we are all equally wise - and equally foolish.
- Albert Einstein
Many of Ludwig's work have the same basic template throughout all philosophy. God is the big picture behind it all thats extremely hard to describe when you don't weigh and consider the philosophy that out there. And my knowledge is half my faith. God has shown himself undeniably throughout my life and people close to me.
You should have taken the advice and done the research. Context is an amazing thing.
Seeing as how all the pro Goders are doing such crap jobs of fighting their corners I shall do so. But I'm going to sleep on it first.
First however, in order to argue it would be nice to have a definition of what constitutes this god I shall argue exists. Are we talking a fully fledged Christian come bible god or can I just argue for a creator?
-----
The person who is certain, and who claims divine warrant for his certainty, belongs now to the infancy of our species.
Albert Einstein was an extremely religious person. Just not in the sense your use to. We all have different definitions of words, it might be easier to say he was spiritual.
All religions, arts and sciences are branches of the same tree.
God always takes the simplest way.
I want to know all Gods thoughts; all the rest are just details.
Morality is of the highest importance - but for us, not for God.
God does not play dice.
God may be subtle, but he isn't plain mean.
I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation and is but a reflection of human frailty.
I am a deeply religious nonbeliever - this is a somewhat new kind of religion.
Before God we are all equally wise - and equally foolish.
- Albert Einstein
Many of Ludwig's work have the same basic template throughout all philosophy. God is the big picture behind it all thats extremely hard to describe when you don't weigh and consider the philosophy that out there. And my knowledge is half my faith. God has shown himself undeniably throughout my life and people close to me.
You should have taken the advice and done the research. Context is an amazing thing.
Seeing as how all the pro Goders are doing such crap jobs of fighting their corners I shall do so. But I'm going to sleep on it first.
First however, in order to argue it would be nice to have a definition of what constitutes this god I shall argue exists. Are we talking a fully fledged Christian come bible god or can I just argue for a creator?
I say, don't bother. There isn't a single piece of evidence in existence to prove there is a God/god/gods. If you must, however, please attempt to avoid the common methods:
1. "The odds of..." Yeah, we know, the chances of something happening are infinitely hard for you to imagine. Even though the odds of something happening that has already happened are 1:1.
2. "This is wrong, therefore Goddidit." Kinda sick of God becoming the default position just because you think something else is wrong.
3. "Experts say..." You made up your experts. Trust me, the experts don't say that at all. You have a few people who claim to be experts but are actually agenda driven godders.
4. "This goat farmer 50 years ago in this remote part of Zukakukuku had a miracle happen to him." Yeah, and my uncle thought he saw a flying faerie once.
5. "The Bible says..." Yeah, well, it lied. It is a simple storybook that was written by people you would put on a terrorist watch list if you saw them today. You would look at them on a plane and wonder when they plan to blow you up or pull out a box knife. It demonstrates no superior moral code that we wouldn't have without it -- it just happens to heavily ladle on the supernatural and steal away the credit that, generally speaking, we're a decent lot of people.
6. "All you have to do is go outside and see the beauty around you of a tree, a mountain, the sky..." I think it's all ugly. Do better.
7. Pascal's wager. Don't even think it.
8. "I think God exists because..." You're wrong. Don't even finish the sentence. As a matter of fact, let's just not even go there.
But if you plan to go ahead and do it anyway, I would like to see you argue, not for a general creator or a Christian God, but instead one of these: Mictlantecuhtli, Marduk, or Huitaca. Please prove their existence. Thank you,
- LC
There is so much that we do not understand or know about the universe. Why do we throw the idea of a higher power out the window? Is it because we like to think we know everything?
---------------------------------------------
Killer 86%, Socializer 53%, Explorer 33%, Achiever 26%
I wanted to say I agree wholeheartedly with the last paragraph.I contest some things with evolution as do some of my associates I work with. That does not mean that some parts of evolution is not true. The same goes with the "BIG Bang". But within both theories there are mistakes. The one I am frequent of pointing out is spontaneous mutation. There is nothing "spontaneous" with mutation.
I know some of you contest this every time I bring it up. But the scientific method alone proves that "Spontaneous" is a incorrect term. Why many scientists just use mutation, not spontaneous mutation. Even if you google "Spontaneous mutation" and click on the Wikpedia. When Wikpedia shows it does not say "spontaneous" but says "Mutation".
[Link] Actually, it appears from the wiki entry that spontaneous mutation is simply a subcategory. Much like: car, truck, suv, and van might be a subcategory of 'vehicle'. Not a bad article at all with a lot of good information regarding spontaneous mutations.
I am actually quite surprised that they still teach that part of evolution in school. It is a bit outdated by current study. I am also annoyed that those who believe in religion and those who are opposite of that use evolution as a parlay tool to prove/disprove a ideology.
I'm sure it is taught in school because it is relevant. Are you sure you aren't picking on it because that is what other ID-ists have done? Like your peppered moth statement, or how they still seem to think that Archaeopteryx is a fake?
As to why Evolution has become a battleground for religious arguments, I think you must ask yourself why it is the church and godders have made it so. It is often commented that they do not attack the theory of gravity. Not to sound childish, but they started it. And frankly, they started it with no other reason in mind other than it contradicted parts of the bible. From that point forward, including when they renamed creationism as intelligent design, they have only looked at select bits of information and ignored the rest. That is an agenda people can really get behind.
As to my post since I originally started this series of threads. I am not asking this question as a theist but from a scientific standpoint. I do study I.D but not for the purpose of proving a religion is "right" or the opposite"Wrong". But it is a question that should be answered. Probability is out the door on this. In ones life you will see a occurrence that by far beats odds that make it a impossibility.
I honestly don't think you've separated yourself from your theism. You might think you have, but somehow you've ignored the mountains of evidence and focused on the gaps. That sounds like someone who knows what is "right" and is looking for a way to make the other "wrong". If ID had real answers it would become the accepted theory today. It just hasn't offered anything that is testable. It relies on that, actually.
Technology in-particular in my field has advanced 500% just in the past 10 years. In many other sectors of science it has exponentially increased beyond our current expectations and will continue to do so. Evolution has had very little to do with these advances. Well let me put it this way. The "Evolution" that high school kids are taught and the "Evolution" that is debated much on these forums. There is "Evolution" But enhanced.
Are you faulting evolution because it hasn't crossed into other fields and helped out? I realize it hasn't developed a new sports car, but I hardly fault it for that. It is what it is, and to expect something radically different is a bit strange. I'm not really even sure where you're going with that line of thought. As to high school science and forum science, yeah... it's the basics. That's why I also visit other sites and also read from scientific databases.From a Geneticist to a Micro- Chemist evolution only fits in some categories. Each year the advances in both fields are making evolution less and less viable.
WHAT?!? I think we need to notify the people in these fields, and quickly! Because they don't realize that evolution is on the ropes! Seriously, is this one of those things that IDists say like, "The majority of scientists don't even believe in evolution now!"? Yikes.
Why Evolution is a theory. 90% of major breakthroughs have occurred in the past 25 years of the last 100. 70% of those breakthroughs have occurred in the past 10 years.
Evolution is a SCIENTIFIC theory. That means a lot in science. Unless I'm misunderstanding what it is you are trying to say here... as to the 90%, 70%, I have no idea what you are getting at.
In my field. The simulation of organic structures with chemical structures has had its most advances in the past 10 years. In the next year the first chip set will come out that is completely soluble. It will have no fractal particles whatever . We already have self-repairing chemicals thanks to nano-technology. How is it done? We just copy our organic counterparts that perform the same function.
Very cool! Can't wait to play the next great MMO on that chip set.
In my field I am primarily responsible for coding. Why I have a thing called a Binary Theory as many of you have read about. The only coding that works chemically is binary. But the foundations of this goes beyond just chemistry. It seems to be the only language that natural elements understand.
Chemistry and Genetics have much in common in this type of research.
In the next 10 years I believe we will have the greatest breakthrough in human history. A crackpot like me which deals with new theory(Not necessarily me). Will find the "Orgin" which will open a trascendency of universal understanding. And everything we see as of now will just be viewed as we would view the ancient civilizations and cultures of our past.
Hey, I just want my flying car that I was promised.
Something to really think about. In every form of science, experiments take place. The results of these experiments are made by what process? From isotope readings to simple chemical reactions. What data is used to give you the result. I hope you follow what I am saying. Physical readings or numeric values greater than 1,0 have very little to do withe process. They just give a result or answer on the thought of what education has taught you. Kind of a layered answer.
Might want to revisit and rewrite what you mean by this. At this point I'm thinking sideways and standing on my head trying to figure out what you mean.
Frankly, Evolution to me is outdated.
Hard to have something that is outdated even as it continues to be developed. I'm not even sure which parts you think are outdated. Spontaneous mutations? You think macro-evolution is not possible? Because the alternative, which isn't an alternative at all, of ID is that Goddidit. It's so complicated that we need to just give up, stop looking for answers, and everyone go home. Again, I say, yikes.
- LC
Proof. We cannot fall victim to our own imaginations just because we're afraid of saying, "I don't know" (well, I'm not afraid of not knowing, but apparently humans have had a huge problem with this throughout history -- sun, thunder, and rain gods anyone?). If the answer does become 'God', then that is the answer. Until that time, what good does speculating on a higher power do? You don't need to know everything in order to avoid believing in anything.
Getting bumper-stickerish,
- LC
I wanted to say I agree wholeheartedly with the last paragraph.I contest some things with evolution as do some of my associates I work with. That does not mean that some parts of evolution is not true. The same goes with the "BIG Bang". But within both theories there are mistakes. The one I am frequent of pointing out is spontaneous mutation. There is nothing "spontaneous" with mutation.
I know some of you contest this every time I bring it up. But the scientific method alone proves that "Spontaneous" is a incorrect term. Why many scientists just use mutation, not spontaneous mutation. Even if you google "Spontaneous mutation" and click on the Wikpedia. When Wikpedia shows it does not say "spontaneous" but says "Mutation".
[Link] Actually, it appears from the wiki entry that spontaneous mutation is simply a subcategory. Much like: car, truck, suv, and van might be a subcategory of 'vehicle'. Not a bad article at all with a lot of good information regarding spontaneous mutations.
I am actually quite surprised that they still teach that part of evolution in school. It is a bit outdated by current study. I am also annoyed that those who believe in religion and those who are opposite of that use evolution as a parlay tool to prove/disprove a ideology.
I'm sure it is taught in school because it is relevant. Are you sure you aren't picking on it because that is what other ID-ists have done? Like your peppered moth statement, or how they still seem to think that Archaeopteryx is a fake?
As to why Evolution has become a battleground for religious arguments, I think you must ask yourself why it is the church and godders have made it so. It is often commented that they do not attack the theory of gravity. Not to sound childish, but they started it. And frankly, they started it with no other reason in mind other than it contradicted parts of the bible. From that point forward, including when they renamed creationism as intelligent design, they have only looked at select bits of information and ignored the rest. That is an agenda people can really get behind.
As to my post since I originally started this series of threads. I am not asking this question as a theist but from a scientific standpoint. I do study I.D but not for the purpose of proving a religion is "right" or the opposite"Wrong". But it is a question that should be answered. Probability is out the door on this. In ones life you will see a occurrence that by far beats odds that make it a impossibility.
I honestly don't think you've separated yourself from your theism. You might think you have, but somehow you've ignored the mountains of evidence and focused on the gaps. That sounds like someone who knows what is "right" and is looking for a way to make the other "wrong". If ID had real answers it would become the accepted theory today. It just hasn't offered anything that is testable. It relies on that, actually.
Technology in-particular in my field has advanced 500% just in the past 10 years. In many other sectors of science it has exponentially increased beyond our current expectations and will continue to do so. Evolution has had very little to do with these advances. Well let me put it this way. The "Evolution" that high school kids are taught and the "Evolution" that is debated much on these forums. There is "Evolution" But enhanced.
Are you faulting evolution because it hasn't crossed into other fields and helped out? I realize it hasn't developed a new sports car, but I hardly fault it for that. It is what it is, and to expect something radically different is a bit strange. I'm not really even sure where you're going with that line of thought. As to high school science and forum science, yeah... it's the basics. That's why I also visit other sites and also read from scientific databases.From a Geneticist to a Micro- Chemist evolution only fits in some categories. Each year the advances in both fields are making evolution less and less viable.
WHAT?!? I think we need to notify the people in these fields, and quickly! Because they don't realize that evolution is on the ropes! Seriously, is this one of those things that IDists say like, "The majority of scientists don't even believe in evolution now!"? Yikes.
Why Evolution is a theory. 90% of major breakthroughs have occurred in the past 25 years of the last 100. 70% of those breakthroughs have occurred in the past 10 years.
Evolution is a SCIENTIFIC theory. That means a lot in science. Unless I'm misunderstanding what it is you are trying to say here... as to the 90%, 70%, I have no idea what you are getting at.
In my field. The simulation of organic structures with chemical structures has had its most advances in the past 10 years. In the next year the first chip set will come out that is completely soluble. It will have no fractal particles whatever . We already have self-repairing chemicals thanks to nano-technology. How is it done? We just copy our organic counterparts that perform the same function.
Very cool! Can't wait to play the next great MMO on that chip set.
In my field I am primarily responsible for coding. Why I have a thing called a Binary Theory as many of you have read about. The only coding that works chemically is binary. But the foundations of this goes beyond just chemistry. It seems to be the only language that natural elements understand.
Chemistry and Genetics have much in common in this type of research.
In the next 10 years I believe we will have the greatest breakthrough in human history. A crackpot like me which deals with new theory(Not necessarily me). Will find the "Orgin" which will open a trascendency of universal understanding. And everything we see as of now will just be viewed as we would view the ancient civilizations and cultures of our past.
Hey, I just want my flying car that I was promised.
Something to really think about. In every form of science, experiments take place. The results of these experiments are made by what process? From isotope readings to simple chemical reactions. What data is used to give you the result. I hope you follow what I am saying. Physical readings or numeric values greater than 1,0 have very little to do withe process. They just give a result or answer on the thought of what education has taught you. Kind of a layered answer.
Might want to revisit and rewrite what you mean by this. At this point I'm thinking sideways and standing on my head trying to figure out what you mean.
Frankly, Evolution to me is outdated.
Hard to have something that is outdated even as it continues to be developed. I'm not even sure which parts you think are outdated. Spontaneous mutations? You think macro-evolution is not possible? Because the alternative, which isn't an alternative at all, of ID is that Goddidit. It's so complicated that we need to just give up, stop looking for answers, and everyone go home. Again, I say, yikes.
- LC
Hi Lucky,Did not mean to make you bounce. Take a look at my other post for a interesting read.
And they used religion to justify their actions.
Bren
Only becuase it would have taken longer to get 60,000 peasents to come fight for them without using religion.
Hold on Snow Leopard, imma let you finish, but Windows had one of the best operating systems of all time.
If the Powerball lottery was like Lotro, nobody would win for 2 years, and then everyone in Nebraska would win on the same day.
And then Nebraska would get nerfed.-pinkwood lotro fourms
AMD 4800 2.4ghz-3GB RAM 533mhz-EVGA 9500GT 512mb-320gb HD
I wanted to say I agree wholeheartedly with the last paragraph.I contest some things with evolution as do some of my associates I work with. That does not mean that some parts of evolution is not true. The same goes with the "BIG Bang". But within both theories there are mistakes. The one I am frequent of pointing out is spontaneous mutation. There is nothing "spontaneous" with mutation.
I know some of you contest this every time I bring it up. But the scientific method alone proves that "Spontaneous" is a incorrect term. Why many scientists just use mutation, not spontaneous mutation. Even if you google "Spontaneous mutation" and click on the Wikpedia. When Wikpedia shows it does not say "spontaneous" but says "Mutation".
[Link] Actually, it appears from the wiki entry that spontaneous mutation is simply a subcategory. Much like: car, truck, suv, and van might be a subcategory of 'vehicle'. Not a bad article at all with a lot of good information regarding spontaneous mutations.
I am actually quite surprised that they still teach that part of evolution in school. It is a bit outdated by current study. I am also annoyed that those who believe in religion and those who are opposite of that use evolution as a parlay tool to prove/disprove a ideology.
I'm sure it is taught in school because it is relevant. Are you sure you aren't picking on it because that is what other ID-ists have done? Like your peppered moth statement, or how they still seem to think that Archaeopteryx is a fake?
As to why Evolution has become a battleground for religious arguments, I think you must ask yourself why it is the church and godders have made it so. It is often commented that they do not attack the theory of gravity. Not to sound childish, but they started it. And frankly, they started it with no other reason in mind other than it contradicted parts of the bible. From that point forward, including when they renamed creationism as intelligent design, they have only looked at select bits of information and ignored the rest. That is an agenda people can really get behind.
As to my post since I originally started this series of threads. I am not asking this question as a theist but from a scientific standpoint. I do study I.D but not for the purpose of proving a religion is "right" or the opposite"Wrong". But it is a question that should be answered. Probability is out the door on this. In ones life you will see a occurrence that by far beats odds that make it a impossibility.
I honestly don't think you've separated yourself from your theism. You might think you have, but somehow you've ignored the mountains of evidence and focused on the gaps. That sounds like someone who knows what is "right" and is looking for a way to make the other "wrong". If ID had real answers it would become the accepted theory today. It just hasn't offered anything that is testable. It relies on that, actually.
Technology in-particular in my field has advanced 500% just in the past 10 years. In many other sectors of science it has exponentially increased beyond our current expectations and will continue to do so. Evolution has had very little to do with these advances. Well let me put it this way. The "Evolution" that high school kids are taught and the "Evolution" that is debated much on these forums. There is "Evolution" But enhanced.
Are you faulting evolution because it hasn't crossed into other fields and helped out? I realize it hasn't developed a new sports car, but I hardly fault it for that. It is what it is, and to expect something radically different is a bit strange. I'm not really even sure where you're going with that line of thought. As to high school science and forum science, yeah... it's the basics. That's why I also visit other sites and also read from scientific databases.From a Geneticist to a Micro- Chemist evolution only fits in some categories. Each year the advances in both fields are making evolution less and less viable.
WHAT?!? I think we need to notify the people in these fields, and quickly! Because they don't realize that evolution is on the ropes! Seriously, is this one of those things that IDists say like, "The majority of scientists don't even believe in evolution now!"? Yikes.
Why Evolution is a theory. 90% of major breakthroughs have occurred in the past 25 years of the last 100. 70% of those breakthroughs have occurred in the past 10 years.
Evolution is a SCIENTIFIC theory. That means a lot in science. Unless I'm misunderstanding what it is you are trying to say here... as to the 90%, 70%, I have no idea what you are getting at.
In my field. The simulation of organic structures with chemical structures has had its most advances in the past 10 years. In the next year the first chip set will come out that is completely soluble. It will have no fractal particles whatever . We already have self-repairing chemicals thanks to nano-technology. How is it done? We just copy our organic counterparts that perform the same function.
Very cool! Can't wait to play the next great MMO on that chip set.
In my field I am primarily responsible for coding. Why I have a thing called a Binary Theory as many of you have read about. The only coding that works chemically is binary. But the foundations of this goes beyond just chemistry. It seems to be the only language that natural elements understand.
Chemistry and Genetics have much in common in this type of research.
In the next 10 years I believe we will have the greatest breakthrough in human history. A crackpot like me which deals with new theory(Not necessarily me). Will find the "Orgin" which will open a trascendency of universal understanding. And everything we see as of now will just be viewed as we would view the ancient civilizations and cultures of our past.
Hey, I just want my flying car that I was promised.
Something to really think about. In every form of science, experiments take place. The results of these experiments are made by what process? From isotope readings to simple chemical reactions. What data is used to give you the result. I hope you follow what I am saying. Physical readings or numeric values greater than 1,0 have very little to do withe process. They just give a result or answer on the thought of what education has taught you. Kind of a layered answer.
Might want to revisit and rewrite what you mean by this. At this point I'm thinking sideways and standing on my head trying to figure out what you mean.
Frankly, Evolution to me is outdated.
Hard to have something that is outdated even as it continues to be developed. I'm not even sure which parts you think are outdated. Spontaneous mutations? You think macro-evolution is not possible? Because the alternative, which isn't an alternative at all, of ID is that Goddidit. It's so complicated that we need to just give up, stop looking for answers, and everyone go home. Again, I say, yikes.
- LC
So instead of ID its better to go with the illogical theory of something from nothing, life from non-life and concinsous from unconcinsous?
Hold on Snow Leopard, imma let you finish, but Windows had one of the best operating systems of all time.
If the Powerball lottery was like Lotro, nobody would win for 2 years, and then everyone in Nebraska would win on the same day.
And then Nebraska would get nerfed.-pinkwood lotro fourms
AMD 4800 2.4ghz-3GB RAM 533mhz-EVGA 9500GT 512mb-320gb HD
- LC
With all of that said, I would most certainly say no. There are far too many inconsistancies with the classic and current view of god for me to consider such a being even close to a likely possibility.
That said, I will concede there is ample room for another force, even an intelligence or purpose in what we know of the universe, and that the existence of such would indeed fill a number of theoretical holes in need of closure.
The concept these days of God is mostly dogmatic, a barbaric picture of what God is like suitable for people of the time it was written. Every religious text and belief uses a medium of truth, such as philisophical ideas worked into Gods "words"
There is a deep connection between knowledge and religion, that few see and the rest dont bother. A truth known to every great philosopher and physicist that ever lived. I cant explain what its like, you have to read philosophical quotes and ideas, and be open minded to a degree. A major portion of the belief is knowledge, i have a compulsive habit to gather random knowledge at times, and after time you see a connection. Explained by philosophy.
Once you grasp the basic concept of philosophy, you see a new value in life, undeniably set there by a designer.
It seems you have a very flawed idea of what philosophy is like.
Let me first direct you to this to simply disprove your argument that you have to believe in a designer once you grasp the basic concept of philosophy
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bertrand_Russel
What you have done is listen to philosophy of one side of the fence while you have ignored the other, made by philosophy who ignore perhaps the most important question:
If the designer made mankind...Who made the designer?
Bertrand Russel isnt the king of philosophers, he has a bitter attitude in his works; which do contain truth, but that doesnt constitute his belief to be true. Like i said people use a medium on which they base truth. Ill share some quotes that might help.
"My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind." -Albert Einstein
“To one who has faith, no explanation is necessary. To one without faith, no explanation is possible.” -St. Thomas Aquinas
"I do not know how to teach philosophy without becoming a disturber of established religion” -Baruch Spinoza
And one of my favorite
"A little philosophy inclineth man's mind to atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth man's minds about to religion." -Sir Francis Bacon
First of all Albert Einstein was not religious, I suggest you do a bit more research on his views.You also seem to have missed this part of the Bertrand Russel page.
Russell had a major influence on modern philosophy, especially in the English-speaking world. While others were also influential, notably Frege, Moore, and Wittgenstein, Russell made analysis the dominant methodology of professional philosophy. The various analytic movements throughout the last century all owe something to Russell's earlier works.
Russell's influence on individual philosophers is singular, perhaps most notably in the case of Ludwig Wittgenstein, who was his student between 1911 and 1914.[47] It should also be observed that Wittgenstein exerted considerable influence on Russell, especially in leading him to conclude, much to his regret, that mathematical truths were purely tautological truths. Evidence of Russell's influence on Wittgenstein can be seen throughout the Tractatus, which Russell was instrumental in having published. Russell also helped to secure Wittgenstein's doctorate[48] and a faculty position at Cambridge, along with several fellowships along the way.[49] However, as previously stated, he came to disagree with Wittgenstein's later linguistic and analytic approach to philosophy dismissing it as "trivial," while Wittgenstein came to think of Russell as "superficial and glib," particularly in his popular writings. Russell's influence is also evident in the work of A. J. Ayer, Rudolf Carnap, Alonzo Church, Kurt Gödel, David Kaplan, Saul Kripke, Karl Popper, W. V. Quine, John R. Searle, and a number of other philosophers and logicians.
Some see Russell's influence as mostly negative, primarily those who have been critical of Russell's emphasis on science and logic, the consequent diminishing of metaphysics, and of his insistence that ethics lies outside of philosophy. Russell's admirers and detractors are often more acquainted with his pronouncements on social and political matters, or what some (e.g., biographer Ray Monk) have called his "journalism," than they are with his technical, philosophical work. There is a marked tendency to conflate these matters, and to judge Russell the philosopher on what he himself would certainly consider to be his non-philosophical opinions. Russell often cautioned people to make this distinction.
Russell left a large assortment of writing. From his adolescent years, Russell wrote about 3,000 words a day, with relatively few corrections; his first draft nearly always was his last draft, even on the most complex, technical matters. His previously unpublished work is an immense treasure trove, and scholars are continuing to gain new insights into Russell's thought.
There are many, many atheist philosophers. To say that philosophy equals a religious view is downright ignorant and incorrect.
Albert Einstein was an extremely religious person. Just not in the sense your use to. We all have different definitions of words, it might be easier to say he was spiritual.
All religions, arts and sciences are branches of the same tree.
God always takes the simplest way.
I want to know all Gods thoughts; all the rest are just details.
Morality is of the highest importance - but for us, not for God.
God does not play dice.
God may be subtle, but he isn't plain mean.
I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation and is but a reflection of human frailty.
I am a deeply religious nonbeliever - this is a somewhat new kind of religion.
Before God we are all equally wise - and equally foolish.
- Albert Einstein
Many of Ludwig's work have the same basic template throughout all philosophy. God is the big picture behind it all thats extremely hard to describe when you don't weigh and consider the philosophy that out there. And my knowledge is half my faith. God has shown himself undeniably throughout my life and people close to me.
Albert Einstein did not believe in a juedeo christian god or any personal god for that matter.
"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal god and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."
www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/quotes_einstein.html
There is more here.
You're excused for finding it confusing, many people do, as people like Albert Einstein use the term "God" very different from what most people are used to.
There are books who touch on the subject. Richard Dawkins The God Delusion touches on Albert Einstein's views, it's worth a read.
- LC
What do you mean they have nothing to do with it? It had to start at some point.
Hold on Snow Leopard, imma let you finish, but Windows had one of the best operating systems of all time.
If the Powerball lottery was like Lotro, nobody would win for 2 years, and then everyone in Nebraska would win on the same day.
And then Nebraska would get nerfed.-pinkwood lotro fourms
AMD 4800 2.4ghz-3GB RAM 533mhz-EVGA 9500GT 512mb-320gb HD
I'm sorry, you've missed the earlier posts where it was laid out that all of those things have NOTHING to do with the Theory of Evolution. This isn't a cop out, it is simply asking the wrong question of a scientific theory. If at some future point these subjects are covered, it will not be under the Theory of Evolution.- LC
What do you mean they have nothing to do with it? It had to start at some point.
Okay, let me break this down for you... If you look at the Theory of Relativity, do you ask of it, "why are lemons so bitter?" No, because it has NOTHING to do with the properties of how lemons taste. So, if you look at the Theory of Evolution (At it's most basic level: Changes over time), and ask, "where does it all come from?", then how can it produce an answer? It isn't possible because it doesn't even attempt to cover such details. Like I have said, that information would have to come from another theory. You are expecting more from a single theory than it was created to produce.
It is not a failing of the theory that it does not answer your question, more of a failure to understand the science. Evolution starts at the single-celled organism as it changed -- until we have you, me, and all of the species of the world. Get it?
- LC
With all of that said, I would most certainly say no. There are far too many inconsistancies with the classic and current view of god for me to consider such a being even close to a likely possibility.
That said, I will concede there is ample room for another force, even an intelligence or purpose in what we know of the universe, and that the existence of such would indeed fill a number of theoretical holes in need of closure.
The concept these days of God is mostly dogmatic, a barbaric picture of what God is like suitable for people of the time it was written. Every religious text and belief uses a medium of truth, such as philisophical ideas worked into Gods "words"
There is a deep connection between knowledge and religion, that few see and the rest dont bother. A truth known to every great philosopher and physicist that ever lived. I cant explain what its like, you have to read philosophical quotes and ideas, and be open minded to a degree. A major portion of the belief is knowledge, i have a compulsive habit to gather random knowledge at times, and after time you see a connection. Explained by philosophy.
Once you grasp the basic concept of philosophy, you see a new value in life, undeniably set there by a designer.
It seems you have a very flawed idea of what philosophy is like.
Let me first direct you to this to simply disprove your argument that you have to believe in a designer once you grasp the basic concept of philosophy
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bertrand_Russel
What you have done is listen to philosophy of one side of the fence while you have ignored the other, made by philosophy who ignore perhaps the most important question:
If the designer made mankind...Who made the designer?
Bertrand Russel isnt the king of philosophers, he has a bitter attitude in his works; which do contain truth, but that doesnt constitute his belief to be true. Like i said people use a medium on which they base truth. Ill share some quotes that might help.
"My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind." -Albert Einstein
“To one who has faith, no explanation is necessary. To one without faith, no explanation is possible.” -St. Thomas Aquinas
"I do not know how to teach philosophy without becoming a disturber of established religion” -Baruch Spinoza
And one of my favorite
"A little philosophy inclineth man's mind to atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth man's minds about to religion." -Sir Francis Bacon
First of all Albert Einstein was not religious, I suggest you do a bit more research on his views.You also seem to have missed this part of the Bertrand Russel page.
Russell had a major influence on modern philosophy, especially in the English-speaking world. While others were also influential, notably Frege, Moore, and Wittgenstein, Russell made analysis the dominant methodology of professional philosophy. The various analytic movements throughout the last century all owe something to Russell's earlier works.
Russell's influence on individual philosophers is singular, perhaps most notably in the case of Ludwig Wittgenstein, who was his student between 1911 and 1914.[47] It should also be observed that Wittgenstein exerted considerable influence on Russell, especially in leading him to conclude, much to his regret, that mathematical truths were purely tautological truths. Evidence of Russell's influence on Wittgenstein can be seen throughout the Tractatus, which Russell was instrumental in having published. Russell also helped to secure Wittgenstein's doctorate[48] and a faculty position at Cambridge, along with several fellowships along the way.[49] However, as previously stated, he came to disagree with Wittgenstein's later linguistic and analytic approach to philosophy dismissing it as "trivial," while Wittgenstein came to think of Russell as "superficial and glib," particularly in his popular writings. Russell's influence is also evident in the work of A. J. Ayer, Rudolf Carnap, Alonzo Church, Kurt Gödel, David Kaplan, Saul Kripke, Karl Popper, W. V. Quine, John R. Searle, and a number of other philosophers and logicians.
Some see Russell's influence as mostly negative, primarily those who have been critical of Russell's emphasis on science and logic, the consequent diminishing of metaphysics, and of his insistence that ethics lies outside of philosophy. Russell's admirers and detractors are often more acquainted with his pronouncements on social and political matters, or what some (e.g., biographer Ray Monk) have called his "journalism," than they are with his technical, philosophical work. There is a marked tendency to conflate these matters, and to judge Russell the philosopher on what he himself would certainly consider to be his non-philosophical opinions. Russell often cautioned people to make this distinction.
Russell left a large assortment of writing. From his adolescent years, Russell wrote about 3,000 words a day, with relatively few corrections; his first draft nearly always was his last draft, even on the most complex, technical matters. His previously unpublished work is an immense treasure trove, and scholars are continuing to gain new insights into Russell's thought.
There are many, many atheist philosophers. To say that philosophy equals a religious view is downright ignorant and incorrect.
Albert Einstein was an extremely religious person. Just not in the sense your use to. We all have different definitions of words, it might be easier to say he was spiritual.
All religions, arts and sciences are branches of the same tree.
God always takes the simplest way.
I want to know all Gods thoughts; all the rest are just details.
Morality is of the highest importance - but for us, not for God.
God does not play dice.
God may be subtle, but he isn't plain mean.
I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation and is but a reflection of human frailty.
I am a deeply religious nonbeliever - this is a somewhat new kind of religion.
Before God we are all equally wise - and equally foolish.
- Albert Einstein
Many of Ludwig's work have the same basic template throughout all philosophy. God is the big picture behind it all thats extremely hard to describe when you don't weigh and consider the philosophy that out there. And my knowledge is half my faith. God has shown himself undeniably throughout my life and people close to me.
Albert Einstein did not believe in a juedeo christian god or any personal god for that matter.
"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal god and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."
www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/quotes_einstein.html
There is more here.
You're excused for finding it confusing, many people do, as people like Albert Einstein use the term "God" very different from what most people are used to.
There are books who touch on the subject. Richard Dawkins The God Delusion touches on Albert Einstein's views, it's worth a read.
Thanks for linking that site. Some great quotes on there i haven't read.
Btw, Einstein refers to a "personal God" in which he doesn't believe in. Like i said in my first post, the view of God these days is mainly dogmatic, which einstein speaks out against. He clearly states that he believes in a higher being. And again, its kind of hard to understand the God we're talking about when you dont have the whole of philosophy grasped.
“In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views.”
“I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings.”
-Albert Einstein
Words mean different things to different people.
- LC
What do you mean they have nothing to do with it? It had to start at some point.
Okay, let me break this down for you... If you look at the Theory of Relativity, do you ask of it, "why are lemons so bitter?" No, because it has NOTHING to do with the properties of how lemons taste. So, if you look at the Theory of Evolution (At it's most basic level: Changes over time), and ask, "where does it all come from?", then how can it produce an answer? It isn't possible because it doesn't even attempt to cover such details. Like I have said, that information would have to come from another theory. You are expecting more from a single theory than it was created to produce.
It is not a failing of the theory that it does not answer your question, more of a failure to understand the science. Evolution starts at the single-celled organism as it changed -- until we have you, me, and all of the species of the world. Get it?
- LC
To go back beyond the Theory of Evolution you may want to read up on Accretion Theory, The Big Bang Theory and maybe even M Theory. These are the widely accepted scientific explanations of what came before.Oh and by your own admission Arndur religion was at the very core of the Crusades. For the people that were actually doing the killing it all boiled down to "My God is better than your God". Whether you personally feel your "God" was personally involved is totally irrelevant. It was the people's belief in God and their religious leaders at that time that spurred them on to commit horrible acts of genocide.
Bren
while(horse==dead)
{
beat();
}
- LC
What do you mean they have nothing to do with it? It had to start at some point.
actually, no.You think that these theories state that everything came from nothing but you are in error. they don't. honestly, they don't. you just have look at them a little and see that your current position is based in ingnorance.
i did post about this before, but you seem to be ignorant of that reply as well.