Religion

FrostBiite wrote:

Necal wrote:

thing944 wrote:I think you mean philosophy...


It can't be a religion if it doesn't have a deity.

Buddhism. Buddhism is a religion, and buddhism has no dieties (Buddha is not a diety. Buddha is simply a human who has reachd enlightenment).

And disturbed? That's pascal's wager. It doesn't work because it assumes that the god in question awards someone for faith, not for being a good person. Which works, if only because Pascal only applied it to the christian religion (discounting all the other religions).

Tbh Buddhism is a religion, but it's because they believe they have the God inside them and to reach nirvana is to become one with that inner force at more times then others... to be "present" (I studied this in english)

You want to shoot theology with me? Fine. Just remember you're talking to the person who reads books on religion all day.

The buddha never taught of a god. Now, I do accept that Mahayana buddhists have likely combined their beliefs with other religions, and use some form of god, but that is far more numen than god (there is a difference. Look it up). Theravada buddhists, however, do not even believe in something that can vaguely be called Numen! To reach Nirvana is to be at peace, without desire. Thus, without suffering. Nirvana has nothing to do with being superior to others (at least, that's what I got from what you said. May have misinterpreted it).

I find the existence of God logical. You cannot prove me wrong with solid fact. There is no solid reference point for logic.

ShadowSaint wrote:I find the existence of God logical. You cannot prove me wrong with solid fact. There is no solid reference point for logic.

First, your own statement contradicts itself. You say God is logical, yet in the last sentence, you say in the matter of the existence of God, there is no solid reference point for logic. if he cant be put to logic, how do you find his existence logical?

That is the exact same excuse people give

"you cant prove me wrong, therefore im right."

That is one of the greatest logical fallacies ever. Until a point is either proven right or wrong, it is in doubt. That is the logicality applied. The existence of God is not logical. it is a variable. it cannot be yet put to logical tests becuz too many variables still exist that must be set constant before it can. Until then, the existence of God lies in the gray area of the unanswerable questions to mankind.


I will leave you with a nice neat lil question thou

"If God is omnipotent, can he create a rock so heavy that he himself cant lift?"

And vice versa so atm there is no conclusion to this conversation and the "logical" point is to not debate it good conversation guys

the probability of the universe being created is very small basically 0, and assuming that time has been going on for a really long time basically infinity, it was bound to happen eventually.

evolution is fact you have to be dumb to believe otherwise, BUT if everything evolves we should assume that they evolve at similar rates. what are the odds of only 1 species evolving so far that they control everything(thats humans btw) this proves the possibility of a god.

allow me to write a brief novela:

Hey guys, I was a cousin of the uncle of the guy who was friends with the son of God. Yea, so basically whatever I say is true. God wants you to drink beer out of bowls on Sundays. You must drink at least 3 bowls before noon, and 6 more before you go to bed. If you do not drink this amount every Sunday you will be sent to a place where everything is burning. If you do as I say you will come hang out with me in my crib; there's free beer.

I call it The Elbib

Appeal to ignorance, yes.

The question has an answer. Nothing shocking if you are familiar with Christian doctrine.

Oh and people who believe in intelligent design are not stupid.

Sinusoidal wrote:the probability of the universe being created is very small basically 0, and assuming that time has been going on for a really long time basically infinity, it was bound to happen eventually.

evolution is fact you have to be dumb to believe otherwise, BUT if everything evolves we should assume that they evolve at similar rates. what are the odds of only 1 species evolving so far that they control everything(thats humans btw) this proves the possibility of a god.

allow me to write a brief novela:

Hey guys, I was a cousin of the uncle of the guy who was friends with the son of God. Yea, so basically whatever I say is true. God wants you to drink beer out of bowls on Sundays. You must drink at least 3 bowls before noon, and 6 more before you go to bed. If you do not drink this amount every Sunday you will be sent to a place where everything is burning. If you do as I say you will come hang out with me in my crib; there's free beer.

I call it The Elbib

If probability is non-zero, it cannot be discounted.

Evolution has been proven (Darwins finches). Yes, everything evolves at similar rates. 1 lifetime = 1 NS (Natural selection). Now, the fact that you don't understand natural selection means you don't understand evolution.

Evolution can, at its base, be devided into two parts; mutations and natural selection.

We KNOW that mutations happen. We KNOW that natural selection happens (Humans fricking do it).

Mutations are changes in the DNA sequence. Simple. We see dozens of them. Every human has many of them. Most are neutral. Some beneficial. Some are detrimental. This part is compeltly random, and it does occur at such a steady rate (1 liftime).

Natural selection is the process by which heritable traits that make it more likely for an organism to survive and successfully reproduce become more common in a population over successive generations. This is NOT random. Humans do it. Sports. Becoming wealthy. Getting a good, steady job. All of these are human methods of natural selection. Many predators fight each other. Basically, the one who has the best genetic code (in relation to the species) is most likely (not a certaintly, but its biology) to reproduce, and pass on its genes. That is evolution.

Now then, as to why species don't appear to evolve at the same rates, its because each species selects based on different atributes. Early humans selected the ones who were smart enough and had enough endurance to run long distances. There's an animal (name escapes me) which selects for horn size, which can be used to protect against predators.

Now, does this make sense, or do I need to talk more?

One more thing; that's too short to be a novella.

actually the number is not that high. and if you were to study more physics, you should know that in physics, nothing is random. we humans simply are uncapable of knowing every singly variable there is. if we were to know every variable in the universe, we could actually predict the future. but since we are in fact a dust grain in the universe, and our knowledge of it is so utterly small, we rely on statistics and probabilities. and it is those areas that come up with that number.

to put it short, if it happened, it would have happened anyways. we simply could not have calculated, given our limit knowledge.

it did just happen. its an event. the first event.

there are many theories, and note that God is a theory, that can explain it.

Necal wrote:

Sinusoidal wrote:the probability of the universe being created is very small basically 0, and assuming that time has been going on for a really long time basically infinity, it was bound to happen eventually.

evolution is fact you have to be dumb to believe otherwise, BUT if everything evolves we should assume that they evolve at similar rates. what are the odds of only 1 species evolving so far that they control everything(thats humans btw) this proves the possibility of a god.

allow me to write a brief novela:

Hey guys, I was a cousin of the uncle of the guy who was friends with the son of God. Yea, so basically whatever I say is true. God wants you to drink beer out of bowls on Sundays. You must drink at least 3 bowls before noon, and 6 more before you go to bed. If you do not drink this amount every Sunday you will be sent to a place where everything is burning. If you do as I say you will come hang out with me in my crib; there's free beer.

I call it The Elbib

If probability is non-zero, it cannot be discounted.

Evolution has been proven (Darwins finches). Yes, everything evolves at similar rates. 1 lifetime = 1 NS (Natural selection). Now, the fact that you don't understand natural selection means you don't understand evolution.

Evolution can, at its base, be devided into two parts; mutations and natural selection.

We KNOW that mutations happen. We KNOW that natural selection happens (Humans fricking do it).

Mutations are changes in the DNA sequence. Simple. We see dozens of them. Every human has many of them. Most are neutral. Some beneficial. Some are detrimental. This part is compeltly random, and it does occur at such a steady rate (1 liftime).

Natural selection is the process by which heritable traits that make it more likely for an organism to survive and successfully reproduce become more common in a population over successive generations. This is NOT random. Humans do it. Sports. Becoming wealthy. Getting a good, steady job. All of these are human methods of natural selection. Many predators fight each other. Basically, the one who has the best genetic code (in relation to the species) is most likely (not a certaintly, but its biology) to reproduce, and pass on its genes. That is evolution.

Now then, as to why species don't appear to evolve at the same rates, its because each species selects based on different atributes. Early humans selected the ones who were smart enough and had enough endurance to run long distances. There's an animal (name escapes me) which selects for horn size, which can be used to protect against predators.

Now, does this make sense, or do I need to talk more?

One more thing; that's too short to be a novella.

Do you consider sexual selection as a part of natural selection? If not, you are forgetting a vital component of evolution which many beginning scientists and evolutionists do.

I THINK that he didnt categorize any specific selection, he randomized or quoted some of them, not excluding others he might have forgotten.

I just mention sexual selection because it plays a pivotal role in evolution, and unlike natural selection, genetic drift, etc its NOT random and is actually something a species controls.

Disturbed wrote:yes. the other being big bang. The universe membrane thing and string theory are rather pointless, they have less proof of existence than obi wan kenobi.

They have some evidence, but its all in numbers. Kinda hard to "prove" something physically that you can't touch. The numbers add up.. to a point though. Its definately an exciting line of thinking though and if proves true (as close as science can get to true) then imagine the implications on so many aspects of our lives.

nnnno not really. and the big bang is not imcompatible with the string theory. string theory is much larger then just teh creation of the universe.

no. its not cause of that. string theory is purely mathematical, and its mathematics CANT be proven wrong. in fact, in science, everything is a theory. evth is accepted UNTIL proven otherwise. unlike dogmatic religions, science doesnt accept a final absolute truth. therefore, evth proven in science is the ACCEPTED theory until proven wrong.

the same occurs with big bang, and string theory. they are mathematically correct, but can one day, be proven wrong due to their variables application in the pragmatical world, or simply IMPROVED upon, wich is something religion does not allow.

The only moral bearings in society are those wich fits its existence.