Moontanman Posted May 13, 2013 Share Posted May 13, 2013 Some times doing whats best doesnt always feel good, in fact it can hurt like hell. What sets humans apart is the ability to contemplate a desired outcome or consequences and execute the act whether it feels good or not. It is the beauty of choice and God has granted mankind the privilege. Positive and negative both have a time and place and are always intrinsic to nature. God has granted us choice? If that is Can you give some evidence of this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
photon propeller Posted May 13, 2013 Share Posted May 13, 2013 For me the evidence is in the complex architecture of reality. It implies an architect. If you believe in that concept, the gravity of choice is well understood. Our realm was created with the rules of science, choice is ours. -1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
krash661 Posted May 13, 2013 Share Posted May 13, 2013 this may make me sound idiotic but, the only thing that brings any kind of sense to this religion or god thing is the ancient alien thought. not the crap on t.v but the core idea of. If I had a world of my own, everything would be nonsense. Nothing would be what it is because everything would be what it isn't. And contrary-wise; what it is it wouldn't be, and what it wouldn't be, it would. You see? ~Alice in wonderland 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted May 13, 2013 Share Posted May 13, 2013 I have some thoughts on that as well, but not the TV stuff but that is another thread... For me the evidence is in the complex architecture of reality. It implies an architect. If you believe in that concept, the gravity of choice is well understood. Our realm was created with the rules of science, choice is ours. Complexity arises from chaos spontaneously, no architect is necessary or implied, evolution is a prime example of this... Our realm was created with the rules of science Created by what? Created how? What evidence do you have for this assertion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
photon propeller Posted May 13, 2013 Share Posted May 13, 2013 I have some thoughts on that as well, but not the TV stuff but that is another thread... Complexity arises from chaos spontaneously, no architect is necessary or implied, evolution is a prime example of this... Created by what? Created how? What evidence do you have for this assertion? The architect creates the realm and rules in which spontaneous complexity occurs. The fact that spontaneous complexity occurs from chaos is evidence of architectural rules, like specifications for a blueprint. If nothing occurs then nothing would be implied. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted May 13, 2013 Share Posted May 13, 2013 The architect creates the realm and rules in which spontaneous complexity occurs. The fact that spontaneous complexity occurs from chaos is evidence of architectural rules, like specifications for a blueprint. If nothing occurs then nothing would be implied. This is nothing but double talk, if you are going to make these assertions you will have to do better than that... Circular reasoning is not evidence of anything... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
photon propeller Posted May 13, 2013 Share Posted May 13, 2013 This is nothing but double talk, if you are going to make these assertions you will have to do better than that... Circular reasoning is not evidence of anything... More like hindsight is 20/20. No double talk just clear answers to your response. The dynamic properties of nature are self evident and reflect a master. I believe that master is God. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
krash661 Posted May 13, 2013 Share Posted May 13, 2013 I'm always curious as to why the religious individuals can not just stick to the the religious forums. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
photon propeller Posted May 13, 2013 Share Posted May 13, 2013 I'm always curious as to why the religious individuals can not just stick to the the religious forums. You mean like this religious forum on a science website? The two topics are not only interesting, but are also intrinsically linked. The psychological reward for accepting one's master is humility. Then one may master ones' self. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
krash661 Posted May 13, 2013 Share Posted May 13, 2013 (edited) now you are starting to sound like a bunch of self help nonsense. typical. IMO things like that are for lower level mentalities. Edited May 13, 2013 by krash661 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted May 13, 2013 Share Posted May 13, 2013 (edited) More like hindsight is 20/20. No double talk just clear answers to your response. The dynamic properties of nature are self evident and reflect a master. I believe that master is God. No the properties of nature require no creator, no master, they reflect nothing but natural processes, your belief in this is nothing but belief and belief is not knowledge... It is not self evident to me and I'm guessing few others on this site would support such meaningless assertions... Edited May 13, 2013 by Moontanman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
photon propeller Posted May 13, 2013 Share Posted May 13, 2013 No the properties of nature require no creator, no master, they reflect nothing but natural processes, your belief in this is nothing but belief and belief is not knowledge... It is not self evident to me and I'm guessing few others on this site would not support such meaningless assertions... And what rules do those natural processes abide by if not the laws of nature. You profess those laws arose from nothing as if to have no meaning. All processes have rules to follow, natural constants, did those parameters just appear or were they designed? This is where we disagree, I claim they have an origin, a supreme lawmaker, the complex energy of God. What laws do you abide by? I believe in knowledge. God is the master of all knowledge. The assertions are not meaningless, they depend on a belief in God, one that discludes nothing, no one. The origin of everything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted May 13, 2013 Share Posted May 13, 2013 (edited) And what rules do those natural processes abide by if not the laws of nature. You profess those laws arose from nothing as if to have no meaning. All processes have rules to follow, natural constants, did those parameters just appear or were they designed? This is where we disagree, I claim they have an origin, a supreme lawmaker, the complex energy of God. What laws do you abide by? I believe in knowledge. God is the master of all knowledge. The assertions are not meaningless, they depend on a belief in God, one that discludes nothing, no one. The origin of everything. As I have said before assertions with no evidence can be dismissed without evidence... There is no reason to assert a God or creative force or architect. It's quite possible the laws of nature are completely random when a universe expands from what ever they expand from, you have no evidence that contradicts this... And again, your belief is not knowledge... Edited May 13, 2013 by Moontanman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
photon propeller Posted May 13, 2013 Share Posted May 13, 2013 As I have said before assertions with no evidence can be dismissed without evidence... There is no reason to assert a God or creative force or architect. It's quite possible the laws of nature are completely random when a universe expands from what ever they expand from, you have no evidence that contradicts this... And again, your belief is not knowledge... Isn't it just as possible if not probable that those laws are not random? When in fact we know that they have symmetry, harmony, limits, and natural constants. It is your assertion that has no evidence. What differs is how we view the origin of existence, the concept of God. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted May 13, 2013 Share Posted May 13, 2013 Isn't it just as possible if not probable that those laws are not random? When in fact we know that they have symmetry, harmony, limits, and natural constants. It is your assertion that has no evidence. What differs is how we view the origin of existence, the concept of God. Extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence, your claim is extraordinary and so requires positive evidence, my position is the default position. You are making a positive assertion I am simply asking for evidence of your assertion so far all you have is belief, belief does not equal knowledge... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
krash661 Posted May 13, 2013 Share Posted May 13, 2013 When in fact we know that they have symmetry, harmony, limits, and natural constants.I'm not sure how this proves your point. so again, tell me the difference between a god that exists but does not manifest in this reality and a god that does not exist. It is your assertion that has no evidence.please explain this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MonDie Posted May 14, 2013 Share Posted May 14, 2013 (edited) Photon propeller might get some insight from this. It's a quote from a post I made on another thread. "However, I did toy with some interesting ideas. At first, I assumed [this concept] would require two types of principles. One tells things to exist, and the other [processes this present existence into future existence] (i.e. if/then rules, cause and effect). However, one can imagine these as one unified principle as well. Instead of the principle having an if/then portion, it simply states how things will unfold. By this I mean that the patterns of causality we observe would be just that, patterns. There would be no if/then rule, but simply a systematic process going "then, then, then, then..." without ever judging any ifs.""What's coming up is perhaps the most interesting part. The persistent idea that every thing has a cause is not actually a logical necessity, it's merely a consistent observation. If these principles are what are responsible for causality, they may not need any external cause. But, again, those who actually know physics may come in and burst my bubble." Edited May 14, 2013 by Mondays Assignment: Die Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
photon propeller Posted May 14, 2013 Share Posted May 14, 2013 So the debate now is does effect have cause or is everything just random effect? How about a physics lesson. For every action there is an equal but opposite reaction. When there is effect there is cause. When all the energy in our universe was released in the beginning, there were already rules in place which that energy would abide by, the laws of physics. Once the laws were in place it is no longer necessary for any interference because the universe is a self evolving system consistent with those rules. The only variable in the beginning was the amount of energy God set forth. The only variable now is the choice of the living to affect that intrinsic balance of positive and negative energy. The laws are not random, they were designed. The effects may appear random because whatever is possible and consistent with the rules will occur given enough time. Cause begins when time does. Change must occur to observe effects, time must pass and with it cause and effects vary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted May 14, 2013 Share Posted May 14, 2013 Is the belief of a god important? does it really matter if a person believes in a higher power or not? How does that belief impact our world? Why should people debate whether or not god exists, can't it be a simple case of 'live and let live'? So the debate now is does effect have cause or is everything just random effect? How about a physics lesson. For every action there is an equal but opposite reaction. When there is effect there is cause. When all the energy in our universe was released in the beginning, there were already rules in place which that energy would abide by, the laws of physics. Once the laws were in place it is no longer necessary for any interference because the universe is a self evolving system consistent with those rules. The only variable in the beginning was the amount of energy God set forth. The only variable now is the choice of the living to affect that intrinsic balance of positive and negative energy. The laws are not random, they were designed. The effects may appear random because whatever is possible and consistent with the rules will occur given enough time. Cause begins when time does. Change must occur to observe effects, time must pass and with it cause and effects vary. See the OP post above, if you want to debate what god is or if god is real I suggest you start your own thread, meantime making positive assertions does require evidence... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
photon propeller Posted May 14, 2013 Share Posted May 14, 2013 You can't debate the concept of God or the importance of belief if you do not first define what your talking about. I told you the evidence is nature itself and you have chosen to disregard all I have said. You chose not to believe in God and that is your opinion. You have given no intelligent input just the same response over and over never debating any specifics. I wonder what skeletons must lie in your closet that compel your denial of accountability. You say the burden of proof is on the believer, that sounds like an escape route for those that live by "ignorance is bliss". The "burden" to find meaning in life is on each and every individual. The idea that the complex world that we live in just arose from nothing without cause to me is utterly ridiculous and unsatisfying. Cause can be traced back to the beginning of time, that is why hindsight is ALWAYS 20/20. -2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted May 14, 2013 Share Posted May 14, 2013 (edited) You can't debate the concept of God or the importance of belief if you do not first define what your talking about. I told you the evidence is nature itself and you have chosen to disregard all I have said. You chose not to believe in God and that is your opinion. You have given no intelligent input just the same response over and over never debating any specifics. I wonder what skeletons must lie in your closet that compel your denial of accountability. You say the burden of proof is on the believer, that sounds like an escape route for those that live by "ignorance is bliss". The "burden" to find meaning in life is on each and every individual. The idea that the complex world that we live in just arose from nothing without cause to me is utterly ridiculous and unsatisfying. Cause can be traced back to the beginning of time, that is why hindsight is ALWAYS 20/20. No Photon Propeller, I have asked you for evidence of your assertions, nature is not evidence of anything but nature and the burden of proof lies with the person making a positive assertion. My belief or disbelief in anything is not relevant to the issue of evidence. If I said I believed there was a invisible dragon in my basement would that be enough of a reason to believe me? What if i said that invisible dragon was responsible for the creation of the universe would that make it more believable? Your incredulity is meaningless and the universe has no obligation to satisfy you and your assertion about cause and effect is so much horse feathers. Even if i allow that any effect has to have a cause why does that cause have to be god? Maybe some brobdingnagian creature someplace ingests dark matter and excretes universes and has no intelligence what so ever? Your assertions need to be supported by evidence and trying to insult my intelligence is laughable. Your assumption of some guilt is insulting and against the rules, if you want to trade insults I suggest you go someplace else there is no room for that here... Edited May 14, 2013 by Moontanman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MonDie Posted May 15, 2013 Share Posted May 15, 2013 (edited) So the debate now is does effect have cause or is everything just random effect? [snip] The only variable in the beginning was the amount of energy God set forth. The only variable now is the choice of the living to affect thatv intrinsic balance of positive and negative energy. The laws are not random, they were designed. [snip] What you think my argument is: The fundamental principles were just a random effect with an unknown or unpredictable cause. What my argument really is: The principles that are responsible for causality do not necessarily need a cause. I will admit it, the idea that everything has a "cause" is very persistent. But as far as we know, this rule only applies to things that exist within space/time. What is cause and effect anyway? There is no all-encompassing definition that covers all the bases. When attempting to define it, some key considerations are: - Sufficient Causes versus Necessary Causes - Ordering in time; which event occurred first? (Has anyone yet proved that time is actually moving forward and not backward?) - Subjective / choice-based (If I do this, it will do that.) versus objective / deterministic (When I do this, it does that.) EDITED: I'm correcting myself. I was going to contrast present-to-future type causation with instantaneous causation, but it appears there is no instantaneous causality. Causal notions appear in physics in the context of information, where "information" is what links a cause to its effect. Formally, it is expected that information can not travel faster than the speed of light since otherwise, reference coordinate systems could be constructed (using the Lorentz transform of special relativity) in which an observer would see an effect precede its cause (i.e. the postulate of causality would be violated). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality#Physics Well, rapping it all up, "cause and effect" is just a broad term used to denote a variety of observable patterns. We believe in these patterns because they're observable, but it's not a logical necessity that a thing exists as part of such patterns. Whatever is responsible for the essence of these laws/patterns is something that doesn't necessarily abide by these laws/patterns. I wonder what skeletons must lie in your closet that compel your denial of accountability. You may be mistaking unicorns for skeletons, but it's irrelevant anyway. Edited May 15, 2013 by Mondays Assignment: Die Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
photon propeller Posted May 15, 2013 Share Posted May 15, 2013 Cause and effect both abide by the predetermined laws of physics. Patterns are the result of cause and effect. The laws must be in place before cause and effect can occur. It is my assertion that the architect of those principals is God. -1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted May 15, 2013 Share Posted May 15, 2013 Cause and effect both abide by the predetermined laws of physics. Patterns are the result of cause and effect. The laws must be in place before cause and effect can occur. It is my assertion that the architect of those principals is God. I understand that is your assertion, if you would change that to it is your belief i would have no problem with it but an assertion needs to backed up by evidence, empirical evidence, do you have any evidence to support your assertion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seriously disabled Posted May 15, 2013 Share Posted May 15, 2013 Cause and effect both abide by the predetermined laws of physics. Patterns are the result of cause and effect. The laws must be in place before cause and effect can occur. It is my assertion that the architect of those principals is God. That's bullshit. God doesn't need to exist in order to explain the cause and effect phenomena we observe in the universe. Actually the evidence shows that the Universe is completely mechanical and is governed by chemical reactions and that God just isn't needed anymore to explain any of this. People by their very nature just don't want to die and they want life to get better for them so they invent God but this is just their wishful thinking and it doesn't actually prove that any God exists except in their selfish imagination. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now