Creation or Evolution?
Offline
Forum
Off Topic Creation or Evolution? ( i believe in God and im not crazy)
we all know that is not good to exceed from anything
KimKat has written
To me religions aren't realistic, because the Pope in the vatican is probably writing new Bible laws and stuff, like "don't run when you can walk for it's the word of god, halelulja!" I don't know what's up with that. It's basicly a dictatorship from one side and then the other side has to obey these words or holy laws since it's coming through the Pope's prophecies(interpretations of the will of God). Why does one believe religion is good for you? a terrorist bomber who were a deep islam believer suicide bombed a city part in Stockholm quite recently, take note from that. I know this for a fact, religious people go crazy easy. I also believe that if you aren't that kind of crazy you might be a atheist.
where the fuck did u get that shit with the pope? lmao
btw the suicide bomber thinks his suicide is good. can't do much about that
Are you crazy? religions makes one that crazy, you saw the news right? are you up-dated or are you reading the Bible only, you should read the news more often. I guess that I'll see some of y'all suicide bombing anytime soon huh?
I hope you realise what religions does to a person after this suicide bomber but of course not, y'all still ignorant. I'm finding religions to be quite weird due to recent events. No offense, my opinion is at least based on facts and not fiction.
And of course not all religious people are like that, just the extreme ones, but you could become that too. I also have a favorite quote that I bring to this forum topic since it's reached over 100 posts, yay. "Without doubt you are insane."
That quote basicly means, if you believe in a god that badly you'll eventually believe in every word that is in the Bible, Koran and you'll probably end up like that suicide bomber on the news. It's not that good, right? well, take a wild guess how you're life will go if you continue this belief in god thing. It could drive someone insane, and I believe that's true lol. Although I have my doubts.
I am just expressing my own personal view on religions, so don't kill me when I'm done. Just because we think differently you're not better, I'm not better. It's all just our philosophies around religions.
edited 2×, last 14.12.10 10:31:26 pm
Lee has written
Who the hell is God?
U DONT KNOW WHOS GODS?
I second that, Lee.
Mankind doesn't need a god to survive. Why? just see what happened to that suicide bomber on the news, it's just bad news. Nothing good came from that suicide bomber... it's just a "misinterpretation" from that islam believer I guess to bomb something. Religions are bad. Out.
edited 1×, last 14.12.10 11:03:31 pm
KimKat has written
That quote basicly means, if you believe in a god that badly you'll eventually believe in every word that is in the Bible, Koran and you'll probably end up like that suicide bomber on the news.
That's just a fallacy, fundamentalism doesn't mean that you have more belief in god (w/e religion you have) than the rest of the people who have different views/perspectives about the same religion.
In fact, you already said so
KimKat has written
Just because we think differently you're not better, I'm not better.
Of course, unless you belong to a weirdshit sect, keep yourself away from those or they'll brainwash you, take your money and you might even end up dead (or all of those together). That's why they are separated from the official religions.
Btw, this is an example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peoples_Temple#Tragedy_at_the_Temple.27s_Jonestown_agricultural_commune
those people who suicide themselves is becuase the dont believe in god they believe in raj (a egipcian god).
Quote
U DONT KNOW WHOS GODS?
The notion of god is a human synthesis and is itself flawed. The traditional definition of God is one that encompasses a metaphysical being "who" is supposedly flawless. However, by the mere act of defining god we have introduced flaws. Why must God be rational? Why does God have to be omnipotent? Why must God be conscious? Why must God be the entity that created the universe? If God is truly the idealization of perfection, then it's undefinable and its behaviors unpredictable. In this sense, the universe cannot have been produced by perfection and hence proving that if God is the essence of perfection, it cannot have created the Universe or even be associated with it. If we however define God to be the creator of the universe, then we forfeit the argument that God is flawless, good, or even an entity. In fact, I completely agree that if we agree that God defines the creator of the universe, then God is in fact real, for you and I exist. However, if we define God as the creator of the universe, then the religious components of theism is lost because we can never rationally define God. The Abrahamaic God is supposedly a being of such perfection that all earthly praises fall short. This exact same sentiment is parroted across many others. The implication here is that while God is supposedly perfect, it's symbolic representations in the minds of its believers are themselves human synthesis. This in effect implies that if God truly is perfect, we can never believe in that perfection, only a muddied projection of what we idealize God to be, and human idealizations are always flawed.
Hey, guess what, my god is a single smallest quanta of energy/matter because my idealization of the creation of the universe begins with that particle.
In this sense, there's no point arguing whether Evolution is real of whether "Creationism" is real. The universe was created, this is a fact. Generations and generations of life progressively change with respect to a set of parameters have been observed and modeled by humans in some defined method called evolution, this is also a fact.
TL;DR - Religious rationalization of God is flawed hence God is flawed. I pray to an effing sub-atomic particle. Creationism and evolution are not mutually exclusive, unless you use the chris* I mean official definition, in which case you're arguing on just one side of the argument and waiting for an opportunity for people to disagree so you can preach them the gospel.
"On-topic:
Lee, you have very serious points but just because something that was flawless created something that had flaws doesn't mean it can't exist! We were aparently created flawless and then flawed by Satan ( That was somewhere in Genesis ).
And have you ever noticed that scientists still cannot simply fuck around with some molten chemicals today and create life? If that could happen as simply as most people think it could, then I have lost all hope for the human race. Everyone wants to reject everything now-a-days.
). Lee has written
The notion of god is a human synthesis and is itself flawed. The traditional definition of God is one that encompasses a metaphysical being "who" is supposedly flawless. However, by the mere act of defining god we have introduced flaws. Why must God be rational? Why does God have to be omnipotent? Why must God be conscious? Why must God be the entity that created the universe? If God is truly the idealization of perfection, then it's undefinable and its behaviors unpredictable. In this sense, the universe cannot have been produced by perfection and hence proving that if God is the essence of perfection, it cannot have created the Universe or even be associated with it. If we however define God to be the creator of the universe, then we forfeit the argument that God is flawless, good, or even an entity. In fact, I completely agree that if we agree that God defines the creator of the universe, then God is in fact real, for you and I exist. However, if we define God as the creator of the universe, then the religious components of theism is lost because we can never rationally define God. The Abrahamaic God is supposedly a being of such perfection that all earthly praises fall short. This exact same sentiment is parroted across many others. The implication here is that while God is supposedly perfect, it's symbolic representations in the minds of its believers are themselves human synthesis. This in effect implies that if God truly is perfect, we can never believe in that perfection, only a muddied projection of what we idealize God to be, and human idealizations are always flawed.
Hey, guess what, my god is a single smallest quanta of energy/matter because my idealization of the creation of the universe begins with that particle.
In this sense, there's no point arguing whether Evolution is real of whether "Creationism" is real. The universe was created, this is a fact. Generations and generations of life progressively change with respect to a set of parameters have been observed and modeled by humans in some defined method called evolution, this is also a fact.
TL;DR - Religious rationalization of God is flawed hence God is flawed. I pray to an effing sub-atomic particle. Creationism and evolution are not mutually exclusive, unless you use the chris* I mean official definition, in which case you're arguing on just one side of the argument and waiting for an opportunity for people to disagree so you can preach them the gospel.
Quote
U DONT KNOW WHOS GODS?
The notion of god is a human synthesis and is itself flawed. The traditional definition of God is one that encompasses a metaphysical being "who" is supposedly flawless. However, by the mere act of defining god we have introduced flaws. Why must God be rational? Why does God have to be omnipotent? Why must God be conscious? Why must God be the entity that created the universe? If God is truly the idealization of perfection, then it's undefinable and its behaviors unpredictable. In this sense, the universe cannot have been produced by perfection and hence proving that if God is the essence of perfection, it cannot have created the Universe or even be associated with it. If we however define God to be the creator of the universe, then we forfeit the argument that God is flawless, good, or even an entity. In fact, I completely agree that if we agree that God defines the creator of the universe, then God is in fact real, for you and I exist. However, if we define God as the creator of the universe, then the religious components of theism is lost because we can never rationally define God. The Abrahamaic God is supposedly a being of such perfection that all earthly praises fall short. This exact same sentiment is parroted across many others. The implication here is that while God is supposedly perfect, it's symbolic representations in the minds of its believers are themselves human synthesis. This in effect implies that if God truly is perfect, we can never believe in that perfection, only a muddied projection of what we idealize God to be, and human idealizations are always flawed.
Hey, guess what, my god is a single smallest quanta of energy/matter because my idealization of the creation of the universe begins with that particle.
In this sense, there's no point arguing whether Evolution is real of whether "Creationism" is real. The universe was created, this is a fact. Generations and generations of life progressively change with respect to a set of parameters have been observed and modeled by humans in some defined method called evolution, this is also a fact.
TL;DR - Religious rationalization of God is flawed hence God is flawed. I pray to an effing sub-atomic particle. Creationism and evolution are not mutually exclusive, unless you use the chris* I mean official definition, in which case you're arguing on just one side of the argument and waiting for an opportunity for people to disagree so you can preach them the gospel.
don't see ur argument for that...
it seems you use what you think to be perfection to define what your God. actually it should be that God defines perfection......
i dont really follow your argument too well but this is what i get out of it. correct me if i am wrong
1. humans believe that God is perfect
2. humans also believe that God has attributes and that God did many things. because of this, what humans believe to be God is not perfect. (i do not understand how this is)
conclusion: God is not what humans believe him to be.
p.s.
lol@sub-atomic particle
don't forget conservation of mass-energy
We just aren't advanced, evolved or educated enough to provide conclusive evidence for evolution or creation. Sure, there's plenty of circumstantial evidence, but nothing concrete. The more we research our existence (through sciences) the more we will come to understand the nature and the beginning of universal existence, but we're far from that and philosophising about it destroys the evidential nature of science, so in my opinion, it's best to have an idea and not place too much stock in it.
I believe there is some kind of constructive force, entity or collection of entities that created a very bare and simple function and added just one variable. This one variable passes through the function and becomes greater, and that greater result is then passed into the "unversal function" again. From a human perspective, this could be interpreted as a specific form of energy enters into the function and becomes matter. Matter enters into the function and becomes molecules. Molecules form cells, cells evolve, all based on an extremely simplistic process. I can't quantify this as a fundamental equation, but the way I see it, the formula goes "take what's there, multiply and connect, something bigger is produced..." We are currently the latest stage in this cyclical growth and we need to realise that it is our purpose to grow, connect and make something bigger. My idea of what this is on our level would be to expand to the stars and use planets in a modular fashion, some being used for food production, some being used for chemical procurement and so on, in the same way the body uses varius cell types for various functions to produce a working human, cells use complex molecules to create a working cell, a molecule uses spare bonds to connect into a bigger molecule, atoms use electrical instability to create molecules, the same way quarks and gluons use the nuclear strong force to combine into an atom in the first place. Under this theory, "God" could be any god, by any name. It could be the "gaia" force (even though that is considered more planetary based than universal) or it could be "Allah", the nature of the creator not needing any definition in such a theory. The cyclical nature fits in with the Bhuddist reincarnation theory and (to me) this gives us the answer to the age old question "what is our purpose?"...
The answer is simple, "Do anything constructive, avoid anything destructive unless it has to be done for the continuation of construction." (I.E: If you're going up a blind alley, it's ok to step back. If someone's slowing progression, it's your duty to confront them. If a cell turns malignant, it's ok for the body's T-cells to kill it) "Grow and connect. Make something bigger than you."
We cannot understand the nature of this higher progression, in the same way atoms can't understand cellular contruction, they just do it by a universal imperative and cells themself cannot understand the thoughts of a human, they just provide a way for them to manifest.
In the end, I suppose what I'm saying is, whether there's an intelligent designer, underlying force or "programmer" (as is with simulation theory) or not, you might as well just be good, decent and helpful to each other. Firstly to continue the universal cycle (Trust me, fighting it won't work. It will happen with or without you), then lead a life of a scholar, so your additional knowledge will improve your ability to perform the first step better. Then, when all is said and done, you will either meet the creator with a life record worthy of such a creator and surely please him/them/it for all the effort you put into the continuation of his creation or you will die and there will be no creator, and you can die happy knowing your influence to the universe was one of improvement, rebalancing the darkness that goes on in this stage of existence with hope that humans will give up this idea of segregation and separation over trivial things such as race, religion or nationality that slowly eats away at our ability to accomplish this universal imperative.
Then again, I could be completely wrong...
Psytechnic has written
it's best to have an idea and not place too much stock in it.
Creation or Evolution is the past, you ain't gonna change that. Let's think about the future...
EDIT: In a strange way, linking to Lee's idea, "God" himself could be considered the "first variable" (I.E: the creator of all that is. After all, we are all "decendent from God") and his "guidance" would be the "universal function", continually perpetuating the growth and expansion of the universe... This would lead to a change in thinking (as so many things do with scientific study), the idea of religion being considered an old way of saying something we can now represent with something scientific or at least logically progressive.
Psytechnic has written
Creation or Evolution is the past, you ain't gonna change that. Let's think about the future...
there is a past, but it is of no importance. what's important is what people think happened in the past.
1984 has written
Who controls the past controls the future; who controls the present controls the past